STATE OF TRIPURA Vs. SHYAM LAL DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the State review petitioners as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent. This review application is filed by the petitioners for reviewing the judgment and order passed by this Court on 02.06.2012 in Writ Appeal No. 19 of 2012, whereby and where under this Court dismissed the writ appeal preferred by the State of Tripura challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.11.2011 passed in CM Application No. 428 of 2011, arising out of WP(C) No. 235 of 2010, wherein the learned Single judge rejected the prayer for extension of time limit fixed in the order of disposing of the writ petition as the same had already been expired.

(2.) Mr. Chakraborty while urging for reviewing our earlier order dated 02.06.2012, passed in Writ Appeal No. 19 of 2012 would contend that the delay alone, in such a case, should not be held to be fatal in the matter of continuing the departmental proceeding and thus, not expedient in the interest of justice for dismissing the prayer for extension of time on the ground that the same has become infructuous. He further submits that the learned Single Judge has not rejected the prayer for extension of time on the ground that the State has approached the Court after expiry of the time limit fixed in the order while disposing of the Writ petition and subsequent time extension prayer to conclude the departmental proceeding. But the same was rejected on the ground that the period for extension, as sought for, has expired and the application for extension of time has become infructuous.

(3.) Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel, appearing for the writ petitioner-respondent while countering the submission of learned counsel, Mr. Chakraborty submits that the instant review petition is not maintainable at all as in the whole petition, the review petitioners did not mention any ground regarding the order which is to be reviewed. He further submits that the whole contention in the instant review petition is relating to the order passed by the learned Single Judge not against the order which is to be reviewed. He finally contends that the scope of an application for review is much more restricted than that of an appeal and an application for review can only be allowed on 3(three) specified grounds namely:--