GAYATRI SAHU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 31.01.2018, consolidated notice was issued before admission on the "delay application" and the review petition. But the fact remains that no such application had actually been filed for condoning the delay in filing the review petition. When this discrepancy was pointed out, the petitioner has filed an I.A. No. 01 in the year 2019 to condone the delay in filing the review petition. In fact, the lapse on the part of the Petitioner in filing the review petition without filing any petition to condone the delay is serious. However, the fact remains that the Registry also omitted to note the defect, in not filing the petition to condone the delay. In the said circumstance, we find it appropriate to extend some leniency to the review petitioner and accordingly, we condone the delay for the reasons stated in the application.

(2.) Coming to the merit of the case, the sequence of events reveals that the Review Petitioner had approached this Court by filing the writ petition with the following prayers :

(3.) The matter was considered and Annexure-A/1 verdict was passed by the learned Single Judge on 08.08.2011 with reference to the rulings rendered in other similar circumstances, which however was sought to be challenged by filing an appeal bearing Writ Appeal No. 60 of 2012 before this Court. When the matter came up for consideration, permission was sought for to withdraw the said appeal, with liberty to file a review petition before the learned Single Judge as evident from Annexure-A/2. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a review petition before the learned Single Judge, wherein interference was declined and the review petition was dismissed as per Annexure-A/3 dated 07.09.2012. It took nearly 'five years' to the Petitioner to wake from the slumber and file Writ Appeal No.271 of 2017 before this Court with a petition to condone the delay of 2164 days in filing the appeal. The matter was considered by this Court and as per judgment dated 03.08.2017 whereby interference was declined on merits as well as in the application to condone the delay. The operative portion as contained in paragraph 7 is extracted below :