THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA vs M/S BHARATH BEEDI WORKS PVT LTD.,

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57591
RP No. 257 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010315052024





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M

REVIEW PETITION NO. 257 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS LABOUR SECRETARY
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560001.
…PETITIONER

(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL
A/W SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA)

AND:

1. M/S BHARATH BEEDI WORKS PVT LTD.,
KADRI ROAD, MANGALORE - 575005
REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
SRI B SATISH PAI

2. KARNATAKA PRADESH BHARATIYA
MAZDOOR SANGHA
REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT
SRI K VISHWANATH SHETTY
C/O BMS OFFICE
S C ROAD, BENGALURU - 560009

3. SMT VISHALAKSHI
MAJOR
W/O SUDHAKAR KOTIAN
RADHA KRIPA
PALIMAR, POST HEJAMADI
UDUPI DISTRICT - 574103
…RESPONDENTS












Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57591
RP No. 257 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010315052024




THIS REVIEW PETITION UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 READ
WITH SECTION 114 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908,
READ WITH ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA.

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER
Smt. Prathima Honnapura, Additional Advocate
General, along with Sri. Yogesh D. Naik, Additional
Government Advocate for the review petitioner, appeared
in person.
2. The Review Petition is filed to review the order
dated 19.09.2023 passed in W.P. No. 27186/2017.
3. The AAG for the petitioner submits that there
was a delay of 223 days in filing the petition. Accordingly,
the petitioner filed an application, I.A. No. 1/2024, under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of the
delay. She argued that Smt. Vinutha N, the Assistant

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57591
RP No. 257 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010315052024



Labor Commissioner, Bengaluru, had sworn an affidavit
explaining the reasons for condoning the delay. The AAG
submits that the delay in filing the review petition was
neither wanton nor motivated by any malafide intention.
Accordingly, she submits that the delay may be condoned
and the petition heard.
4. Heard the arguments on the application for
condonation of delay and carefully perused the papers,
application, and affidavit.
5. This review petition presents a compelling case,

as it is primarily based on a judicial obiter dictum.
6. Let me consider whether the review petitioner
has established grounds for condoning the delay in filing
the petition. Before addressing that issue, let us briefly
review the law of limitation.
Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides that a Court
may, in its judicial discretion, admit an appeal or

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57591
RP No. 257 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010315052024



application filed after the limitation period has expired if
sufficient cause is shown for the delay. The Court has full
discretion to refuse an extension of time, but, like any
judicial discretion, it must exercise that discretion
vigilantly and circumspectly, in accordance with justice,
common sense, and sound judgment. It must not act
arbitrarily, vaguely, or fancifully. Delay cannot be
condoned as a matter of “judicial generosity,” and
condonation of delay cannot be claimed as of right.
Given the words “may be admitted" in Section 5, the
Court retains discretion to refuse to admit an appeal or
petition filed late, even when sufficient cause is shown. An
extension of time under that Section is a concession or
indulgence to the appellant or petitioner who filed late, not
a right.
Proof of "sufficient cause" is a prerequisite to the
Court’s exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction. The key

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57591
RP No. 257 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010315052024



issue is not the length of the delay, but whether the cause
is sufficient.
The Court should not assist a party that has
unreasonably delayed seeking the statutory remedy. The
remedy must be sought with reasonable promptness,
taking the circumstances into account.
No doubt, authorities hold that the words "sufficient
cause" should be construed liberally to advance substantial
justice. What constitutes sufficient cause cannot be
defined with certainty, since the facts giving rise to such
questions may differ. What amounts to sufficient cause in
one case may not do so in another. Accordingly, each case
must be decided on its own facts and circumstances.
However, it must not be overlooked that the
appellant/petitioner must prove that he acted diligently.
He must also explain the delay day by day, beginning from
the last day of the limitation period.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57591
RP No. 257 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010315052024



7. Reverting to the facts of the case, the review
petitioner was the third respondent in the writ petition and
was duly represented by an AGA. After considering the
contentions advanced on behalf of the respective parties,
this Court disposed of the petition on 19.09.2023. The
review petition was filed on 04 June 2024, resulting in a
delay of 223 days. Accordingly, an application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed as I.A. No.
1/2024 to condone the delay.
8. I carefully reviewed the application and affidavit
sworn by Smt.Vinutha N., Assistant Labor Commissioner.
She states that the petition was disposed of on
19.09.2023; the Advocate General's office requested a
certified copy on 21.09.2023 and received it on
03.10.2023. On 21.12.2023, the Government Advocate
sent the copy and an opinion to the Head of the Legal Cell,
Department of Labor, that an appeal was not warranted.
The Head authorized to file a review petition on
12.01.2024, and it was forwarded to the Advocate

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57591
RP No. 257 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010315052024



General's office on 18.01.2024. The office received a
certified copy of the order on 20.01.2024; after compiling
the documents, it drafted and filed the review petition.
She attributes the delay to obtaining intra- and inter-
departmental approvals.
This court cannot accept the reasons stated in the
affidavit. Although the petition was filed in 2024, the
Advocate General’s Office made no effort to address the
office objections for over two years.
The applicant's explanation - that the delay resulted
from the time required to obtain intra- and inter-
departmental approvals - cannot be accepted. To condone
a delay, the law requires a demonstration of “sufficient
cause” that is bona fide, unavoidable, and beyond the
party’s control. Routine administrative or procedural steps
within the government cannot, by themselves, amount to
sufficient cause. Accepting such internal processes as
justification would open the floodgates to routine and

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57591
RP No. 257 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010315052024



negligent delays, undermining the certainty and finality
that limitation statutes are intended to ensure. The Court
is therefore constrained to find that the plea, based solely
on departmental approvals, is neither legally sustainable
nor factually persuasive and cannot justify condonation of
the delay.
The Government is not entitled to special
consideration under Section 5 of the Limitation Act; the
statute makes no distinction between the State and
private parties. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held
that, in cases involving condonation of delay, the
Government stands on the same footing as a private
litigant. Accordingly, the Government petitioner deserves
no leniency.
The Apex Court held that “the file was kept pending
for approval due to procedural red tape, pushing of files,
or movement from one table to another" is not “sufficient
cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57591
RP No. 257 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010315052024



Departments with qualified legal officers and staff familiar
with court procedures cannot plead ignorance or
helplessness. In the modern age, administrative
machinery and inherited delays cannot excuse inordinate
delay. Condoning delay remains a judicial discretion,
requiring a bona fide, acceptable explanation for every
stage—not vague claims of internal file movement.
Furthermore, in Shivamma (dead) by LRS v. Karnataka
Housing Board & Others, Civil Appeal No. 11794 of 2025
(disposed of 12.09.2025), the Hon’ble Apex Court held
that litigants must not act lethargically or apathetically,
nor misuse the legal process.
The petitioner's affidavit and submissions do not
justify the delay in filing the review petition. The Court
declines to extend time or condone the delay.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 1/2024 and the review petition
are rejected.

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57591
RP No. 257 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010315052024



Lastly, AAG requests time to file a better affidavit.
The Court declines.


Sd/-
(JYOTI M)
JUDGE

SS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15