KAMAL LOCHAN DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Review Petition has been filed with a prayer to review the judgment dated 5.2.2004 passed in W.P.(C) No.5801 of 2003.

(2.) THE aforesaid Writ Petition had been filed by present opposite party No.5 Rama Chandra Singh (hereinafter referred to as the 'Writ Petitioner) inter alia praying for cancellation of permission granted for installation of a stone crusher unit in favour of present petitioner Kamal Lochan Das (hereinafter referred to as the 'Review Petitioner) who was arrayed as opposite party No.5 in that Writ Petition. It was alleged that the said permission had been granted without keeping in mind the conditions formulated by the State for installation of crusher units. The review petitioner had appeared before this Court and had filed a counter -affidavit, but then neither he nor his counsel did appear before the Court on 16.1.2004 when the Writ Petition had been listed for hearing. In order to grant him further opportunity to contest the case this Court, as it appears from the order -sheets, adjourned the case. Thereafter the matter was again listed for hearing on 5.2.2004, but still there was no appearance on behalf of the review petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned counsel for the State, and perusing the Writ Petition and the affidavits filed by the opposite parties, this Court arrived at the conclusion that continuance of the stone crusher unit in question by the review petitioner was not in the interest of general public. This Court therefore quashed the permission granted in favour of the review petitioner to install/run the stone crusher unit and directed the State authorities to take appropriate action.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY the Writ Petition was disposed of in February, 2004. No document has been annexed to the petition for condonation of delay to substantiate the plea. To attract the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act a litigant is required to substantiate his case that he had sufficient cause for not preferring any application within the period of limitation prescribed under the said Act. In the case at hand, except making some bald statements no attempt has been made by the review petitioner to substantiate his plea.