Conflicting judicial orders on the same project warranted condonation of delay in review petitions.

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) sought condonation of a 665-day delay in filing review petitions against the judgment dated 6 November 2017.

It attributed the delay to the matter being examined across its planning, architecture, land-management and legal departments before a decision to seek review was made in August 2019.

The non-applicants opposed condonation, relying on limitation principles discussed in Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board.

A Coordinate Bench had earlier noted that orders concerning the same road project appeared to conflict with the judgment under review and that this circumstance should be considered when deciding condonation.

The Court also considered the earlier orders dated 18 September and 11 October 2013, which permitted removal of encroachments for a 45-metre road, footpath and green belt.

1. Whether the 665-day delay in filing the review petitions should be condoned, having regard to the explanation offered and the apparent inconsistency between judicial orders concerning the same project.

2. Whether the earlier orders concerning the project establish a basis for reviewing the judgment dated 6 November 2017.

The Court considered the principles governing condonation of delay, including the requirement to assess the explanation for delay and the relevance of the length of delay.

The non-applicants relied on Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board and the principles quoted from Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by L.Rs. v. Special Deputy Collector (LA), including that condonation is discretionary and that the merits ordinarily should not be considered at that stage.

The Court did not undertake a general discussion of those principles, stating that the decision rested on the facts peculiar to these cases.

It treated the possibility of conflicting judicial orders concerning the same project, and the resulting administrative difficulty, as a relevant circumstance when considering condonation.

Although the Court acknowledged that the DDA’s explanation left some periods of delay insufficiently explained, it considered itself guided by the Coordinate Bench’s order of 29 January 2025, which had identified apparently conflicting outcomes concerning the same project.

The earlier orders arose from concessions and undertakings, and the non-applicants disputed their relevance to the merits of the present review petitions; the Court considered those arguments more appropriately for the review hearing.

In light of the potential inconsistency between orders and the possible administrative consequences, the Court declined to reject the review petitions solely on limitation grounds.

It listed the review petitions for hearing on 13 October 2026 and expressly left open all contentions on their merits, including whether the earlier orders could support review and whether they formed part of the grounds pleaded.