MANDI SAMITI Vs. MANDI SAMITI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review petition has been preferred by the petitioner Mandi Samiti, Sultanpur against the judgment dated 18 January 1989, Reported in (1988) 1 UPLBEC 371 (LB) (FB). passed by a Lamer Bench consisting of three Hon'ble Judges. By the judgment impugned in the review petition three writ petitions were finally decided One of the writ petitions was writ petition No. 2692 of 1979. Ramchandra Nath v. Mandi Samiti, Sultanpur and Anr. The other two writ petitions were writ petition No. 3565 of 1979 and writ petition No. 745 of 1980 The Larger Bench by its judgment dated 18 January, 1989 [(Reported in (1989) 1 UPLBEC 371 (LB FB)] had allowed the writ petitions and quashed the termination orders which were the subject matter of challenge in all the three writ petitions.

(2.) Aggrieved by the judgment the respondent in the writ petition had preferred Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court. The Special Leave Petition filed in the case of Ramchandra Nath was got dismissed as withdrawn. The order of Hon'ble Supreme Court is dated 21 August, 1989. The petitioner of review petition thereafter has filed review petition alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is dated September 22, 1989. The application has no details. We quote the contents of the application :

(3.) The review petition mentions factual details stating the reasons for filing the review petition. Those reasons do not cover the point of "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay The affidavit in support of the factual details stated in the review petition is silent on this important point. We feel that to make out 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay it was necessary that a separate affidavit should have been filed. The averments made in the body of the review petition are not explanatory on the point of sufficient cause. Except for saying that a Special Leave Petition was preferred and it was got dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 21-8-1989, no material related to cause of delay in filing the review petition has been stated.