The Bombay High Court dismissed a review petition filed by the State of Maharashtra and other authorities challenging a previous decision from November 2017. The petition faced a delay of 1,679 days, primarily citing administrative procedures, the COVID-19 pandemic, and weather disruptions as reasons for the delay. However, the Court found these explanations insufficient and highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory timelines. The Court also ruled that a subsequent change in law, which the state used as a basis for review, is not a valid ground for reopening the case.

1. Case Background

   • The State of Maharashtra sought to review a judgment dated November 15, 2017, through Review Petition No. 19950 of 2022. The petition was filed with a delay of 1,679 days.

2. Reason for Delay

   • The state argued that the delay was due to administrative processes, the COVID-19 pandemic, and other disruptions, including heavy rainfall in Kolhapur. It cited a notification issued in June 2020 as a basis for the petition's timing.

3. Legal Precedent and Supreme Court Orders

   • The state referenced the extension of limitation periods due to the COVID-19 pandemic as ruled by the Supreme Court, attempting to apply this to its case.

4. Court’s Analysis on the Delay

   • The Court rejected these reasons, pointing out that the original limitation period expired long before the pandemic and that administrative delays do not constitute sufficient cause.

5. Review Petition and Change of Law

   • The state based its review on a subsequent overruling of the Pune Municipal Corporation decision by the Supreme Court. The Court held that such a change does not justify a review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

6. Court’s Application of Legal Principles

   • The Court applied principles from cases like Delhi Development Authority v. Tejpal, highlighting the importance of diligence and the limitation law’s applicability even to state entities.

7. Dismissal of Intervention Applications

   • Applications filed by various parties seeking intervention were also dismissed as they were not considered appropriate or relevant to the review petition.

Ratio Decidendi:

The Court emphasized that delays must be substantiated with sufficient cause, and mere administrative hurdles or subsequent changes in law are not valid reasons for condonation. The limitation law applies uniformly, and state entities are not exempt from its requirements.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Governs the grounds for review petitions.
• Supreme Court’s Orders on Extension of Limitation Periods: Referenced regarding the COVID-19 pandemic.

Subjects:

Law - Civil Procedure, Limitation Law, Review Petition

Judicial Review, Limitation Period, Administrative Delay, Civil Procedure, Bombay High Court, State Accountability.