1 2025:CGHC:8181 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 61 of 2024 1 - Arvind Kumar Dewangan S/o Late G.D. Dewangan Aged About 40 Years Proprietor M/s Arvind Kumar Dewangan, Contractor (PWD And RES) High School Road, Narayanpur, Tah. And Dist. Narayanpur, Civil And Revenue Dist. Narayanpur, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The Executive Engineer Public Works Department, (B/R) Division Narayanpur, Dist. Narayanpur, C.G. 2 - The Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department, (B/ R) Division Narayanpur, Dist. Narayanpur, C.G. 3 - The Chief Engineer Public Works Department, (B/ R) Division Narayanpur, Dist. Narayanpur, C.G. 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Ministry Of Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Raipur By And Through Its Secretary. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Government Advocate SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2025.02.18 14:34:17 +0530 2 SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 17/02/2025 1. Heard on IA No.1, an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision. 2. There is delay of 2090 days in filing the Revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant preferred a Reference Case under Section 7 of the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, in which, an award was passed on 14.3.2018 though none was present on behalf of the applicant at the time of final arguments on the said date. When the said award came to the notice of the applicant, he applied for its certified copy on 20.10.2018 and the same was received by him on 26.11.2018 (Annexure P/1). Thereafter, WPC No.196/2019 was preferred by the applicant on 2.1.2019. He would further submit that although there was a proper remedy available to the applicant to file a Civil Revision, but instead he preferred a Writ Petition, which was subsequently, with the permission of the Court, withdrawn by him. Accordingly, the Writ Petition was dismissed by the order dated 7.3.2024, as withdrawn with the liberty to file a duly constituted Civil Revision. Thereafter, this Civil Revision has been filed by the applicant on 8.4.2024. He would also submit that the petitioner is a resident of Naraynpur, Bastar and was suffering from mental ailments and a Medical Certificate has also been filed by him in this regard. He would further that the petitioner was in custody from 9.1.2017 to 28.7.2018 i.e. for about One year and 7 3 months. Lastly, learned counsel submits that the applicant had no intention to cause the delay and further, sufficient cause has also been shown by him for the delay occurred and therefore, the same may be condoned. 4. Learned counsel for the State would submit that since the applicant himself filed the Reference Case, it was within his knowledge. Even during confinement in jail, the applicant participated in the proceedings. However, in a deliberate manner, the applicant did not appear at the time of final arguments, therefore, considering this aspect, the impugned final award was passed on 14.3.2018. He submits that despite the knowledge about such proceeding with regard to the said date, the applicant with an intention to cause delay, though there is a limitation period of 90 days for filing a Civil Revision, applied for the certified copy of the impugned award after more than 7 months i.e. on 20.10.2018. He submits that the applicant also chose a wrong forum by filing a Writ Petition instead of Civil Revision. Hence, no satisfactory explanation has been offered by the applicant to show sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Lastly, learned counsel for the State prays to dismiss the application for condonation of delay and accordingly, also dismiss the revision. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the Revision carefully. 6. It is well settled that for condonation of delay, even the delay of shortest range may not be condoned, whereas, in certain other cases , delay of long periods can be condoned if the explanation is satisfactory and acceptable. The Court must distinguish between an “explanation” and an “excuse”. An “explanation” is designed to give someone all of the 4 facts and lay out the cause for something. It helps clarify the circumstances of a particular event and allows the person to point out that something that has happened is not his fault, if it is really not his fault. Care must, however, be taken to distinguish an “explanation” from an “excuse”. It is also well settled that no formula that caters to all situations and, therefore, each case for condonation of delay based on existence or absence of sufficient cause has to be decided on its own facts. 7. Admittedly, the applicant himself filed the Reference Case and also participated in the proceedings on the previous dates, but only on the date of of final arguments, no one has made appearance on his behalf. Subsequently, the petitioner, after a gross delay of about more than 7 months, applied for the certified copy of the impugned award on 20.10.2018 though the same was passed on 14.3.2018. Thereafter, a wrong forum has been chosen by the applicant by filing a Writ petition instead of Civil revision and consequently, after many years, Counsel for the applicant has withdrawn the said Writ Petition with liberty to file a duly constituted Civil Revision. 8. Considering the above backdrop of the case, this Court is of the view that neither any proper explanation has been offered nor any sufficient cause has been shown by the applicant to condone the delay. 9. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. In consequence, the Revision is also dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Shyna 5