KISAN KRANTI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA Vs. VISHNU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this application, the original respondent Nos.4 and 5 from the writ petition who represent the Management and the School being run by it are seeking condonation of delay in filing the review application in respect of the judgment and order dtd. 23/8/2018 in WP No.663/2017.

(2.) We have heard the learned advocate Mr. Irale for the applicants. He submits that without there being any oblique intention, the applicants could not cause appearance in the writ petition and it was decided ex parte. He would submit that without there being any concrete proof regarding the rate of salary being paid to the respondent No.1 - original petitioner, this Court passed the order by making observation accepting the statement being made by him as a gospel truth. He would further submit that there is a serious dispute as regards the rate at which the salary was being paid and it would be necessary for this Court to embark upon the inquiry and reach some acceptable figure as per the record available with the applicants. A fair opportunity deserves to be extended to them to contest the writ petition on merits, which is possible only if the delay is condoned.

(3.) The learned advocate further submits that every attempt has been made to explain the delay in the application. There was intervening pandemic during which period by virtue of the order passed by the Supreme Court, the delay for the period of pandemic was liable to be condoned. It is only after the respondent No.1 preferred the Contempt Petition No.557/2019 and the petitioners were served with a notice that prompt action was taken to approach this Court with this application seeking condonation of delay. The delay was neither intentional nor deliberate. In the matter of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji and Ors.; (1987) 2 S.C.C. 107, the Supreme Court has laid down the parameters on the basis of which the delay can be condoned. Irreparable loss and gross injustice would perpetuate if the petitioners are not extended opportunity to seek review after condonation of delay.