•'•V'^'^'^iW^':;..^^"^g^?: ^^SiSSS ^lts Petitioners &•;•^ V:. Prine Depa Cl- Secr nt, sssarh through the ', Water Resources D.K.S. Bha1,' ineer-in-Chief, . Water 'ersus wiSiSiStH 'OUolliUiCl OIIiyii, .O/ Singh, aged about 42 years, presentty workinfl as Se'ect Grade :Sub Engineer in the Office of the E.E. Barnai Canai Divlsion, Ambikapur, R/o. G-5, Smgation Paratappur, Ambikapur. Vishnukant Pandey,' . S./o. Shri Ramnaresh Pandey, aged about 41 years; presentiy .v/orking as Seiect Grade Sub Engineer in the office of the E.E., Water Resources. Dn. 3,. mbikapur, R/o. G-4, Irngation Coiony, 3. Suresh Kumar. Chadar, . S/o. Shri prssentiy working as Setect.Grade Sub Engineer in theoffice of.the E.E. Water Resources Department Dn. Manwahi, DistriGt Bilaspur, R/o. G- .irrigation Colony,: near Ambikapur. • Rajiv Deshmukh, aged about 43 years, presently workini as Select Sub E,' the E.E.Vtf.R.D. behind . Pashu .Hospital, Bouripafi UUalkciUUa. 5,' Baideu Ram Chandrakar. S/o. Shri 44: years, presentiy working as Seieet Grade Sub Fngineer in the office of the E.E. Barnai Canai, Diyn. Charmudsya Kurud,DistrictDhamta! "^,w£fs'' - 2. Mohamnied Sakir Aii, S/o. Shri J..Khan, aged aboui 43 years, presentiy workine as Seiect Grade Sub Engineer in the office of the E.E. WRD Dn. Ambikapur, R/o. H-3, irrigation Co! Sanarss Road, Gandhi Nagar, lar Tiwari, S/c. Sl •ari, aged about workinia as Select Grade Sub Enoineer in the office of the E.E. Water H-3 Irrigation Colony, Banaras Road, 8. Pankarj Kumar Vyas, S/o. S.R. Vyas, aged about 43 years, presently v/orkins as Select Sub Engineer in the office of the E.E. Wafer Resources Divn.1, Ambikapur, Rfo. J-12, imgation Cotony Gandhi Nagar, 9. Raflhvir Prasad Vishwakarma, S/o. Sh Assistant Engineer in the ofnce of ;.E. Barnai Cana! Division Ambikapur, R/o. G-1, irrigation Colony, Near Marin Shagvvandas Vishwakarma, S/o Shri Har Prasad Vishwakarma, aged about 43 years, presently working as Ssiect Grade Sub Engineer in the office ofthe E.E. Water Resourees, Oivision' No.2, Amblkapur, R./o G-3, irrigation Coiony, Near Marin Drive, Ambikapur. iges aoout 4Z years, t as Seiect Grade Sub Engineer in the 3.2 i4- Platappur Naka, Ambikapur. iagacie, S'o Shri aged' about 48 ^years, v/orkincj as Seiect Grade Sub in ihe office of the E.E. Waier Resources Dn. No.1, Ambikapur; R/o Vihar Road, Biiaspur. -3 7. 18. 13. Bhajanial ,Gupta, S/o Ramprasad Gupta, aged about 56 years, presently workina as Setect Grade Sub Ere in the ofrice of the E.E. Barnai Divn., Ambjkapur, Rio Banki Colony, Gundsrdehi, Ambikapur. as Seiee 'rivedi, S/o Shri aged about 56 ysars, presently workini Grade Sub Engineer in the office E.E. Barnai Cana! Divn. R/'o Near Chandani Chowk, pl 15. R about 43 years, presentiy workingas SeiecS Grads Sub Engineer the E.E. Barnal ikapur, R/o Near Chowk, ibjkaDur 16. Gajendra Singh Chandel, S/o.Late Shri Daichand Chandei, aged about 44 years, presently working as Sslect Grade Sub Engineer in the office of the Resources Divn. No.5, Pump, h rasad Namdeo, S/o Late ihola Prasad Namdeo, aged about iresently working as Sslect Grade Sub Engineer in the office of the E.E. Water Resources Dn., Kota, PJo. Road, Near Eisc. Sub Station, Seside Dr. Vaidh, Nehru Nagar, Rashid Ahmed Khan, S/o F.M. aged about 43 years, presently as Seiect Grsde Sub Engineer oftheE.E.Water s, R/o House "f Dr. Datta,. Masiid.. TalaDara Raed, '.jarahabhata Present: Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, C>y. Advocats Gene.rai for ihe- Mr. Manoj Paranjape, counsel for respondents No.1 to 18. Ms. Astha Singh Sisodia, Advocate appears on behalf c iwr. Rajeey Shrivasiava, counse! forthe respondent No.19. risi Passed on this 2'!°" day of October, 200i 3o.1. This i petition. . ' 2) The order, which is sought to be reviewed, 2006 in Writ Petition No. 180 of 2002. The petition !0-2- •filed this review petition on 3-4-2007 after a delay of 378 days. Ths petitioners/State fai!ed to comply with the order passed by this coyrt and did not make any application for review of the order within the prescribed time limit it fiied e respondents No. 1 to 18 on 27-6-20CB and notice thereof was issued on 10-7-2006, the pefitioners have decided to fiie this reyiew petition to avoid compliance of the Admittedly, the petitioners have not chosen to file intra court 'appeai or othsr petition within the limitatiQn period. 3) Section 5 of the Limitation Act, J-983 provides for condonation of or appiicant satisfies the courf that'Ti.e had delay. In case the appei sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the appiication within such period, de!ay may be eondoned. , his is an appiication for condonation of de!ay in fiiing this review <-- I'l,. s) In the present revievi' petition, delay is required to be explained on day to day basis. The reasons shown by the petition-ers/State in appSjcation are that the matter periains to erstwhile State of IViadhya Pradesh and some time v/as taken. in securing the documents and other reasonson merit, igrioring the fact that the 'writ pstition was filed on 1S-1- 2002 and the order was passed on 20-2-2006. The petitioners/State have faited te take any steps during pendency of the writ petition.and iafter. 5) Learned counsel appearing for the petit the Hon'bfe Supreme Court has condoned th® Learned counse! has rei atter OT pon a decisi jshnaR Vs. 1 iits ms iay in various matters. : the Hon'bte Supreme 7) it is wel) settied principie'of law deoends on the reasons for condonation of delay. condonation of delay The Hon'ble Supreme shov/n sufficient cause expiaining case facts are such which do not Court, •vhi!s coridoning the deiay, Qvery day's deiay, but in the provid® sufficient cause expiaining every day's deiay. Thus, the reasons given by the petitioners/State are not sufficient for condonation ofdelay. . . 8) „ In view of the above, the application is dismissed on account of delay as beini barred by limitation. Conssquently, review petitton a!so siands disrriissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge '•'1998)7SCCI23