1 WPSB No.127 of 2009 Hon’ble Ravi Malimath, A.C.J. Hon’ble R. C. Khulbe, J. Shri M.C. Pant, learned amicus curiae for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Singh Bisht, learned counsel for the respondent- Bank. Delay condonation application (CLMA 6684/19) Review application (MCC 409 of 2019) There is a delay of 2890 days in filing the review application. The reason assigned is that the petitioner was not well. Various dates have been narrated therein. The review application has been filed seeking to review the order dated 18.05.2011. It is stated that the order suffers from an error apparent on the face of record. The petitioner was more than 70 years and was attempting to argue the matter through video conferencing. We informed him as to whether he would like to have the assistance of an amicus curiae to help him in his case. He agreed to the same. As a result, we appointed Shri M.C. Pant, a senior member of the bar, to assist him. Accordingly, papers were furnished. 2. Shri M.C. Pant, the learned amicus curiae, submits that the petitioner is suffering from various medical ailments; that he has been fighting for the cause of justice by filing a number of petitions; that due to his poor ill health, he could not maintain this application for review at the appropriate time. He has produced medical certificates also in support of the same. Hence, he 2 pleads that the delay in filing the review application be condoned. 3. On merits, it is contended that the order under review suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. Notwithstanding the same, the learned counsel submits that some of the grievances of the petitioner have not been considered, either by the Bank or by this Court; and the grievances have been pending for quite some time. Hence, he pleads that irrespective of the present application, he may be granted liberty to make a representation to the bank seeking for the reliefs, and the bank may be directed to consider the same. 4. On the other hand, Shri Ajay Singh Bisht, learned counsel appearing for the bank, disputes the same. He pleads that the delay has not been satisfactorily explained; the medical certificates do not support the cause of the petitioner. Hence the review application is required to be dismissed on the ground of delay itself. So far as the merit is concerned, he contends that there is no error apparent on the face of the record that calls for any interference. 5. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the considered view that appropriate interference is called for. Irrespective of the delay involved, we have heard learned counsels so far as the merit is concerned. On considering the same, we do not find any error apparent on the face of the record that calls for any interference. The contentions urged by the petitioner, party in person, 3 have been considered in the order under review. It cannot be said that any error has been committed in the said order. 6. Under these circumstances, consideration of the application for condonation of delay would become futile. Hence, we do not find any ground, either to condone the delay or to allow the review application. 7. Notwithstanding the same, the petitioner is always entitled to make a representation or a request to the respondent-bank, as he deems fit. There is no bar in law for the same. It is needless to state that if any such representation is made, the bank shall consider the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. 8. Ordered accordingly. 9. Delay condonation application (CLMA 6684 of 2019) as well as review application (MCC 409 of 2019) is dismissed accordingly. (R.C. Khulbe, J.) (Ravi Malimath, A.C.J.) 07.10.2020 R.D/B.S.