HUDA Vs. SUNIL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is a delay of 36 days ' in filing the present revision petition. Before the State Commission too, there was a delay 287 days ' in filing the appeal. The petitioner had moved an application for condonation of delay before the State Commission. The only ground set up by the petitioner was that the filing of appeal was delayed on account of departmental and procedural delay.

(2.) THE learned State Commission placed reliance on authorities reported in Union of India Vs. Vijay Laxmi, reported in 2006 (1) CPC 61 (NC), State of Nagaland Vs. Lipokao and Ors., reported in 2005 (2) RCR (Crl.) 414 and D. Gopinathan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and Anr., reported in (2007) 2 SCC, 322 and dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay as well as on merits.

(3.) IN Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed that "It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by Section 5. If 'sufficient cause ' is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If 'sufficient cause ' is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bonafides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the inquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant. "