IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CLMA Delay Condonation Application No. 8644 of 2009 MCC Review/Recall/Modification Application No. 752 of 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3631 OF 2001 (SS) Data Ram Gaur ……Petitioner. Versus Deputy Director of Agriculture, Garhwal Mandal Garhwal, District Pauri Garhwal. ………Respondent. Mr. V.B.S. Negi, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand. 12th October, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Mr. V.B.S. Negi, Advocate for petitioner and Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand. This writ petition was dismissed on merits by the learned Single Judge on 10th December, 2007. Now the petitioner has filed a belated review petition, which as per the office report is barred by limitation by 634 days. The reason assigned by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the review petition is that the review petition could not be filed in time inasmuch as the petitioner could not be informed by the counsel as the address, which was noted by the counsel for the petitioner pertains to Pauri Garhwal, but the petitioner was transferred to district Uttarkashi and therefore, the letters of the counsel addressed to the petitioner at his old address could not reach the petitioner. Even the department has not informed the petitioner about the disposal of the writ petition. The reasons assigned for 2 delay in filing the review petition appear to be bonafide. The delay condonation application is allowed. The delay is condoned. Heard the review petition of the petitioner. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on merits on 10th December, 2007 as the appointment order of the petitioner itself states that he will continue only till a regular candidate is appointed and since a regular candidate has been appointed, the appointment of the petitioner is automatically cancelled. The petition itself has been heard and decided on merits. After hearing both the counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the State. Therefore, nothing can be done presently in the present review petition. The powers of this Court in review are extremely limited and under present facts and circumstances of the case, there are no probable grounds for interference in the order dated 10th December, 2007. The review petition is, therefore, dismissed. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 12.10.2009 Rathour