Review P. No.8 of 2009. 23.3.2009. Present: Mr.Y.P.S. Daulta, Central Government Standing Counsel, for the petitioners. C.M.P.(M) No.152 of 2009: This application has been filed for condoning the delay in filing the review petition. This Court, vide its order, dated 10.12.2007, had allowed the writ petition filed by the original petitioner in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents. Copy of the said order was applied for on the next date i.e. 11.12.2007 and was received by the learned Central Government Standing Counsel on 18.12.2007. This review petition has been filed on 25.2.2009 and is barred by limitation by one year, one month and eight days. Even if the averments made in this application for condonation of delay are accepted to be correct, the explanation for delay is only upto 21.3.2008, till when the file moved from one wing of the applicant/petitioners to the another wing. It is apparent that sometimes in March, 2008 or early in April, 2008, the present petitioners had taken a decision to file a review petition. The applicants, for the reasons best known to them, have kept the exact date a closely guarded secret even from this Court. After March, 2008, the next date referred to in the application is 26.9.2008 and it is alleged that -2- on that date, para-wise comments were sent by the Department to the Central Government Standing Counsel to prepare the review petition. There is no explanation as to why these comments were not sent from March, 2008 till September, 2008. We also find that the review petition was prepared on 10th November, 2008 and the affidavit in support of the petition was attested on the same date. The petition was actually filed on 25.2.2009. There is no explanation at all as to what is the cause for not filing this petition during the period 10th November 2008 to 25th February, 2009. Keeping in view the fact that there is no explanation worth the name for condoning delay, the application for condonation of delay is rejected and the same stands disposed of accordingly. Review Petition No.8 of 2009 & CMP No.118 of 2009: Infructuous. (Deepak Gupta), Judge . March 23, 2009. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.