IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL REVIEW No.245 of 2008 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, VISHWESHWARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 2. CHIEF ENGINEER-CUM-ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER-CUM-SPECIAL SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, VISHWESHWARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 3. COMMISSIONER, SARAN DIVISION, SARAN AT CHAPRA. 4. CHIEF ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY WING, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, VISHWESHWARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 5. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR AT MUZAFFARPUR. 6. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, N.H.DIVISION, CHAPRA, SARAN ---------------------RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/REVIEW PETITIONERS. Versus 1. VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA, SON OF SHRI BRAJ NANDAN CHAUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-KHURAUNA, P.S. KUDHANI, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR------ PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT. 2. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE REGIONAL OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF ROAD TRANSPORT & HIGHWAY(MOSRT &H), 17 ANIKET HOUSING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, I.A.S. COLONY, S.K. NAGAR, PARTA. ---------RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT 2ND SET. ----------- 03. 24.02.2009. Re :- I.A. No. 394 of 2009 I.A. No. 394 of 2009 is a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, wherein prayer has been made for condoning the delay of 114 days in filing of this review application. Statutory time of 30 days was available to the review petitioner but despite that further delay of 114 days has been made. The grounds taken are ornamental and non-impressive, which fail to convince us that this Court’s order dated 30.4.2008 was communicated by the concerned Government Advocate to the departmental authorities on 1.5.2008 i.e. the next date of the order but the order was placed by the concerned clerk before the Secretary (Technical) to the Engineer-in-Chief on 16.5.2008. There is no explanation why this delay of 15 days was made and what were the constraints that it could not be promptly dealt with. It is said that the draft for approval was placed on 19.5.2008 before the Secretary(Technical) to the Engineer-in-Chief, who approved the same - 2 - on 25.5.2008 and that thereafter it was sent to Engineer-in-Chief where it remain till 19.6.2008. The leisurely move of the petitioner did not stop and it continued in the manner as stated in paragraph-5 of this application that on 10.6.2008, the Secretary(Technical) to the Engineer-in-Chief sent the file to the concerned Headquarter, then it is said that discussions were made with the Government Advocate and thereafter the file was sent to the Legal Remembrancer on 19.7.2008 and it was received on 21.7.2008 and sent to the concerned section and then it is said that times were taken in the office and that on directions, which were received from Legal Remembrancer on 30.9.2008 this review application was filed. Record shows that this review application was filed on 15.10.2008. Thus, it appears that the matters have moved in the government department in a very leisurely manner without realizing the importance of the matter. There is no explanation why such long delay was made and what were the impediments at particular stages that the matters were not moved expeditiously. In such view of the matter, we do not feel inclined to condone the delay. Therefore, the prayer for condoning the same is refused. As a consequence of the refusal of the condonation application, this review application will also stand dismissed as time barred. I.A. No. 394 of 2009 is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ (C.M. Prasad, J.) (V.N.Sinha, J)