Facts
The Review Applicants (Union of India) filed a Review Application (RA) on October 30, 2025, seeking to review an order dated May 1, 2025, passed in OA No. 466/2019
Source reference: p. 1, para. 1Accompanying the RA was MA No. 129/2026, seeking condonation of delay
Source reference: p. 1, para. 1The Applicants received the physical copy of the original order on May 9, 2025, and attributed the subsequent delay to administrative procedures, including forwarding the order to the Competent Authority for instructions, legal vetting, and coordinating with the Senior Central Government Standing Counsel
Source reference: p. 1-2, para. 2Issues
Whether the Review Applicants established "sufficient cause" to condone the delay in filing the Review Application under the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules
Source reference: p. 2, para. 4Law Applied
The court applied Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, which stipulates that a review application must be filed within 30 days from the receipt of the order
Source reference: p. 2, para. 3It relied on the legal maxims vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt (law assists the vigilant) and interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is in the interest of the State that there be an end to litigation)
Source reference: p. 2-4, para. 4the court applied the principles established in Shivamma (Dead) By Lrs v. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors, 2025 INSC 1104, which mandates that "sufficient cause" must be demonstrated for the entire duration of the delay, from the start of the limitation period until the actual date of filing
Source reference: p. 3-4, para. 4Reasoning
The Tribunal examined the timeline and the justification provided in MA No. 129/2026. It noted that the applicants received the order on May 9, 2025, but did not file the RA until October 30, 2025, exceeding the 30-day statutory limit
Source reference: p. 1-2, para. 1-3Applying the Shivamma ratio, the court reasoned that the applicants failed to provide a detailed account of the "entire duration" of the delay
Source reference: p. 5-6, para. 5The explanation regarding internal procedural vetting was deemed "careless and casual," failing to meet the threshold of "sufficient cause"
Source reference: p. 6, para. 5The court emphasized that statutes of limitation are founded on public policy to prevent the agitation of stale claims and that the government is not exempt from the requirement to act with vigilance
Source reference: p. 4-5, para. 4Holding
The Tribunal dismissed MA No. 129/2026, holding that the applicants failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay
Consequently, the Review Application (RA No. 260/0009 of 2026) was also dismissed as barred by limitation
Source reference: p. 6, para. 5No costs were awarded
Source reference: p. 6, para. 5Original Court PDF
D/o PostvsA MAHAPATRA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in