( 2025:HHC:22033 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMP(M) No. 1130 of 2025 and Review Petition No.53 of 2025 Decided on: 8th July, 2025 ___________________________________________________ Govt. of H.P and others ....Applicants/petitioners Versus Rakesh Kumar …Respondent ____________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The present Review petition has been filed for reviewing, recalling and modification of order dated 27.02.2025, passed in CMP(M) No.136 of 2025 titled Govt. of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. vs. Rakesh Thakur, whereby we had dismissed the application for condonation of delay filed by the State, since the appeal was barred by 01 year 11 months’ and 20 days’. 2. The present petition is also barred by 127 days’ and therefore application being CMP(M) No.1130 of 2025 has been filed for condonation of delay. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. Apparently, the order dated 27.02.2025 which is sought to be reviewed was also tested before the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s) 18722 of 2025 which was dismissed on 16.06.2025. The order passed by the Apex Court reads as under:- “ 1. We do not find any good ground to entertain the present petition. Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed. 2. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.” 4. Keeping in view the fact that the State had preferred its remedy before the Apex Court and in view of the averments made in the application, duly supported by an affidavit, there is sufficient cause to condone the delay. Resultantly, we condone the delay of 127 days’ in filing the present Review petition. 5. Coming on the merits of the review, the Order was passed in open Court in presence of the State counsel and the reasons as such have been mentioned. The explanation now put forth and the details given to justify the delay have been further compounded. If one is to see the application for condonation of delay, the order which was sought to be challenged was dated 22.11.2022, had been downloaded from the site on 30.11.2022, but still the appeal could not be filed till 11.11.2024. The reasons as such which have been given now, showing the movement of the 3 file, would also show the administrative laxity as such, since from the downloading of the order on 30.11.2022, the opinion of the Advocate General was not taken for more a year and half till 24.06.2024 and it was only thereafter the decision was taken on 07.09.2024 to file the Appeal. 6. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that there is no error as such on the face of record in the order, which is sought to be reviewed or which would warrant interference in any manner. The argument raised that the judgment of the learned Single Judge as such would be made a precedent as such is out of place, since we are not commenting on the merits of the case in any manner. It is always open for the State to file an appeal in similar case within the prescribed period of limitation to test the other judgments of the learned Single Judge on merits following the same view, if it is a fit case. 7. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice 8th July, 2025 ( Ranjan Sharma ) (priti) Judge