CRL.REV.P./473/2010 of CENTRAL EXCISE Vs STATE
Parties
- CENTRAL EXCISE (PETITIONER)
- STATE (RESPONDENT)
Cited by (1)
Counts citations resolved within this build's own ingested judgment corpus. The true corpus-wide count will be higher until more of the corpus is ingested.
Full text
solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 8[th] December, 2010 Date of Order: 4[th] January, 2011
+CRL. M.A. 14500/2010 IN CRL. REV. P. 473 OF 2010%
04.01.2011
CENTRAL EXCISE
... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Satish Aggarwala & Mr Shrisih Aggarwal, Advocates.
Versus
STATE
... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Addl. PP for the State Mr. Zafar Sadique and Mr. Asghar Khan, Advs. for R-2
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
1. This application has been made for condonation of delay in filing this Revision Petition against order dated 11[th] February, 2010. There is delay of 105 days. The reasons for condonation of delay as stated are that certified copy of order was ready on 18[th] February, 2010, the department was advised to assail the order, the department wrote letter to counsel on 22[nd] march, 2010 seeking fresh advice. The department was advised by letter dated 18[th]April, 2010 to file revision petition. The department was reminded again vide communication dated 16[th] May, 2010 and another communication dated 1[st] August, 2010. Ultimately, the department on 25[th] August, 2010 conveyed the decision to file revision petition against the order dated 11[th] February,
2010 and accordingly the revision petition was filed on 31[st] August, 2010 with delay of 105 days.
2. I consider that leniency of courts being shown to department for condonation of delay is being mis-used. When the order dated 11[th] February, 2010 was passed by the learned ACMM, and the department was advised by its counsel immediately to assail the order, the department was supposed to take action within reasonable time. Reasonable time in this case was before expiry of period of limitation for filing the revision petition. It was Standing Counsel of the department who advised her in this case and the department was very well aware that order has to be challenged within time limit. The department in this case did not act and had to be reminded by the counsel twice.
3. The explanation given for condonation of delay is no explanation and cannot be accepted. I find no force in this application for condonation of delay. The application is hereby dismissed, with the result, the Revision Petition also stands dismissed.
JANUARY 04, 2011
acm
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.