IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No. 1857 of 2024 Decided on: 19.08.2025 Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and another … Petitioners Versus Sh. Tilak Raj Sharma and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Advocate for the applicants/petitioners. For the respondents : Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this application, a prayer has been made for condonation of delay in filing the review petition. 2. Learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners submitted that delay in filing the review petition is on account of the fact that after the adjudication of the writ petition, a Letters Patent Appeal was preferred by the State. Said Letters Patent Appeal, i.e. LPA No. 112 of 2023, was allowed to be withdrawn by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, with liberty to the present petitioners to seek a review of the order passed in the writ petition and on this count, delay has been caused in filing the review petition. 3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the non- applicants/respondents submitted that the LPA was withdrawn by 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 the present petitioners on 03.01.2024 whereas the review petition was filed on 23.09.2024 and there is no explanation given in the application as to why the review petition could not be filed within the period of limitation or within some reasonable time thereafter and on these grounds, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the application alongwith accompanying review petition. 4. In rebuttal, learned Counsel for the applicants/ petitioners submitted that the delay in filing the review petition is not intentional but is bonafide as the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal was not conveyed by the Counsel who was engaged by the electricity-Board and the petitioners came to know about the fate of the letters patent appeal only when the non-applicants enquired about the implementation of the judgment. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the averments made in the application as well as the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the Letters Patent Appeal, this Court is of the considered view that no ground has been made out by the applicants/petitioners for condonation of delay in filing the review petition. 6. The Letters Patent Appeal was withdrawn by the present petitioners on 03.01.2024 which was pending before the Hon’ble Division Bench, on the request of learned Senior Counsel for the 3 appellants before the Hon’ble Division Bench. The following order was passed in the LPA by the Hon’ble Division Bench:- “Learned counsel for the appellants seeks permission to withdraw the present appeal with liberty to file a review of the impugned order before the learned Single Judge, since, according to learned counsel for the appellants, an office order dt. 04.05.2022, which has bearing on the matter, was in-advertently not placed before the learned Single Judge for consideration. 2. In view of the said submission, learned counsel for the appellants is permitted to withdraw the present appeal with liberty to seek review of the impugned order before the learned Single Judge. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.” 7. The averments made in the application that this order was not conveyed to the petitioners by learned Counsel representing them cannot be believed for the reason that neither any affidavit of the concerned learned lawyer is appended with the application and further the learned lawyer who represented the Board in the said LPA is still continuing to represent the Board till date. If the said learned Counsel was remiss in his duties, then it is not understood as to how the Electricity Board is still continuing with said Counsel. This clearly demonstrates that probably a concocted story has been made in the application to throw the burden of negligence on the 4 lawyer concerned, without substantiating the allegations. Accordingly, as this Court is not convinced that cogent reasons stand mentioned in the application for condonation of delay in filing the review petition in view of the fact that the Letters Patent Appeal was withdrawn on 03.01.2024 and the present review petition was filed on 23.09.2024, the instant application seeking condonation of delay in filing the review petition is dismissed and so is the fate of the accompanying review petition. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 19, 2025 (narender)