IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No.68 of 2011 State of Uttarakhand & others … Appellants Vs. Vinod Prasad Sharma … Respondent Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Brief Holder for the State/appellants. Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate i/b Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for the respondent/review applicant. Coram: Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) An order was passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.61 of 2011 thereby rejecting the said appeal. Mr. Adarsh Kumar was granted certain relief by this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No.477 of 2003. Petitioner/review applicant, who was similarly situated, however, did not approach the Court in time and he approached only in the year 2010 by filing Writ Petition (S/S) No.1124 of 2010. The petition was allowed and the relief claimed by him was granted. Feeling aggrieved, the State preferred the Special Appeal. The ground taken in appeal by the State was that the petitioner/review applicant had approached the Court with a delay of seven years; the writ petition was highly belated, however these points were not considered by the Writ Court. In special appeal, the Division Bench, while allowing the appeal, came to the conclusion that: - “The respondent did not approach the Court even after noticing the initial success of Adarsh Kumar and others, which they obtained in 2004. Even at that stage, respondent was not confident as to whether the said success of Adarsh Kumar and others is long lasting or not. The respondent approached this Court 2 only being assured in 2010 that the success of Adarsh Kumar and others is long lasting, but by that time, as above, he permitted his cause of action to die. 7. It is true that the principles of limitation do not apply, in strict sense, to writ jurisdiction, but what is not available by way of ordinary remedy should not normally be granted in course of an extraordinary remedy, unless special equity is in favour of the person seeking such remedy. A person, who is not confident about his claim, which is demonstrated by his conduct of not taking appropriate action within a reasonable time, and approaches the Court only on the success of others, has no special equity in his favour. 8. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and order under appeal.” Now, the review application has been filed by the petitioner-Vinod Prasad Sharma with a delay of 1304 days with effect from the said order, referring to another decision of this Court, wherein certain relief was granted. After having independently considered the application seeking condonation of 1304 days delay, we find no reasonable explanation for the same. Thus, the delay condonation application (CLMA 1262/15) is rejected, as we do not find any good ground for entertaining the review petition after this considerable delay, which has not been satisfactorily explained. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) June 3, 2015 Rdang