Augustine George Masih, J. - (1.) PRAYER in this application is for review of the order dated 29.05.2013. Prior to entertaining the present application, there is first hurdle which the applicant -State is to face, which is an inordinate delay of 254 days in filing the present review application. The only explanation put forth in the application is mentioned in Paras No. 2 and 3 of the same, which reads as follows: -
(2.) THAT the issue came of light when certain connected matters were filed in December 2013, challenging the appointment of the petitioners. On perusal of the record, it transpired that owning to some miss communication the matter had been dismissed as infructuous without any adjudication on merits, immediately thereafter the matter was examined and defense sanction was sought for filing review after seeking approval and opinion of the competent authority. Hence the delay occurred on account of these procedural aspect as well as in examination of the records. That the delay caused is not intentional and the applicant would suffer irreparable loss in case the delay is not condoned. In a recent judgment in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr., : 2012 (2) S.C.T. 269, the Supreme Court has deprecated such delays on the part of the government bodies or governments, etc. in the following manner: - 28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government. 29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. 30. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay. 2. In view of the above, the present application cannot be accepted firstly on the ground that there is an inordinate delay in approaching this Court in filing the present review application and secondly there is no valid explanation put forth with regard to condoning the delay in filing the review application. The application for condonation of delay is, therefore, dismissed. Consequently, the review application, which has been preferred by the State, also stands dismissed. ;