$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 881/2002 NARENDRA JHA ..... Appellant Through: Petitioner in person. versus DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECH ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Manish Mohan CGSC with Ms.Priyansha Sinha and Ms.Manisha Saroha, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA O R D E R % 08.05.2017 C.M.No. 7921/2017 1. This application seeks to place on record documents in support of the proposal submitted by the appellant with regard to project “Existence of life in Universe” which was rejected and regarding which the appellant had filed the W.P.(C) 3617/2001 and the present appeal assailing the orders passed in the writ petition. 2. Apart from the bald assertion that the documents were not filed at the time when the appeal was filed, no other justification of circumstances has been made which would have made the appellant entitled to file the copy of the documents annexed to this application on record. 3. Even otherwise as observed in the order dated 28th August, 2002 this Court does not have technical expertise to go into the subject matter of the documents. 4. This application is consequently dismissed. C.M.No.7920/2017 (condonation of delay) & R.P. No. 79/2017 5. Vide C.M.No.7920/2017 application the appellant has prayed for condonation of delay of 4738 days in filing review petition bearing No. 79/2017. By this review petition the appellant has prayed for review of the decision dated 20th November, 2002 in LPA 881/2002 dismissing the challenge to the order dated 24th August, 2001 rejecting W.P.(C) No. 3617/2001. 6. By way of LPA No. 881/2002 the appellant also challenged the decision dated 28th August, 2002 dismissing the application for review of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24th August, 2001. 7. It appears that the petitioner had sought financial assistance from the respondents for a project “Existence of life in Universe”. The respondents examined the project of the petitioner which was rejected by a letter dated 24th May, 1993. The request for funding was, therefore, rejected. 8. On the 3rd September, 1996 experts of the respondent Department declined to recommend the project of the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that appellant was a post graduate in English language who had not studied in science curriculum. The petitioner‟s challenge by way of W.P.(C) No. 3617/2001 was rejected on 24th August, 2001by the learned Single Judge after examining the appellant‟s proposal and also failing to file any scientific contents and substance in the project report. It was also held that this Court was not technically competent to decide the issue raised by way of writ petition. 9. So far as challenge by way of LPA 881/2002 is concerned, this Court on 20th November, 2002 had held that the learned Single Judge was right in rejecting the writ petition as experts had examined the project and found it devoid of any merit. The appellant waited for more than 15 years before approaching the writ Court and has filed the present petition after delay of 4738 days seeking review of the previous orders of this Court. 10. A perusal of the review petition would show that the appellant is still pressing the feasibility of the same project based on the same material which was rejected by the experts of the respondents as well as by this Court. Even otherwise, we are of the view that the appellant has failed to explain the reason as to why the documents enclosed with the application and the circumstances in which delay occurred in filing the review petition beyond the period of limitation. The applicant has failed to disclose sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in filing the review petition. 11. The application for condonation of delay and the review petition are, therefore, dismissed. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA, J MAY 08, 2017 mr