Sr. No. 1 Suppl. List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU (Through V.C.) RP 35/2019 IN [LPASW 77/2002] STATE OF J&K AND ORS. ...PETITIONER(S) Through: - Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG Vs. YASH PAL SING. …RESPONDENT(S) Through:- Mr. Atul Verma, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDER 26.05.2025 1. A petition seeking review of the judgment dated 20th February, 2014, passed by this Court in LPA(SWP) No. 77/2002 titled “State of J&K Vs. Yash Pal Singh” is delayed by 1878 days and, therefore, the instant application seeking condonation of delay. 2. In the application, it is pleaded by the appellants that they became aware of the judgment passed by this Court dated 20th February, 2014, in time and the process was initiated by the Chief Engineer PW(R&B) Division, Jammu, vide his communication dated 23rd April, 2014, whereby the matter was brought to the notice of the Administrative Department. MIR ARIF MANZOOR I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 27.05.25 Sometime was consumed in collecting some factual note from the concerned Division as also the necessary documents. 3. It is submitted that after collecting all the requisite information and documents, the matter was taken up with the Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, for grant of sanction. The sanction was granted by the Department on 7th August, 2018, and after obtaining the sanction from the Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, the review petition was filed before this Court on 21st May, 2019. Even if we were to accept the explanation tendered by the respondents till August, 2018, when the sanction was granted by the Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, there is no explanation forthcoming to justify the delay of almost one year even after the sanction was granted. 4. We have gone through the application filed by the applicants/review petitioners seeking condonation of delay and are of the opinion that the appellants have miserably failed to demonstrate sufficient cause which prevented them from filing review petition within the statutory period. The delay of 1878 days has thus remained to be explained. What is submitted by the applicants/review petitioners in the application is nothing but ipse dixit of the petitioners and does not constitute any cause much less sufficient cause which prevented the petitioners to file the review petition within prescribed period. MIR ARIF MANZOOR I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 27.05.25 5. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in this application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Consequently, the review petition filed is also dismissed. (SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE Srinagar, 26.05.2025 “Mir Arif” MIR ARIF MANZOOR I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 27.05.25