2026:HHC:28429 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMP.M No. 315 of 2026 Decided on : 10.07.2026 The State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Applicants/Petitioners Versus Megh Raj …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicants/ petitioners : Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral ) The present application has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the Review Petition, seeking review against the judgment passed on 17.11.2023, in CMP(M) No. 992 of 2023, titled as The State of Himachal Pradesh through the Additional Chief Secretary (PWD) & Others Vs. Megh Raj, whereby three miscellaneous applications regarding the three time barred Appeals, were pronounced on account of being time barred. 2. In the present case, the delay at that time was of 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:28429 620 days in filing the LPA and keeping in view the law laid down in Postmaster General and others Vs. Living Media India Limited and another, (2012) 2 SCC 563, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed. 3. Apparently, the State went up in SLP vide Diary No. 45504 of 2024 and the same was dismissed on 20.12.2024. Thereafter, the present application has now been filed on 17.01.2026, more than one year after the SLP was dismissed and seeking a review of the order. 4. It is a classic case where the State is in a litigating mood and inspite of the fact that there was a delay in the initial part, they had never been vigilant in filing the petition, within the period of limitation. Even now, the present application of condonation of delay has been filed over a year after the SLP was dismissed. 5. Even otherwise, once having got an order of dismissal in the SLP, we do not find any plausible reason as to how a Review Petition is maintainable. The said exercise, if any, had to be conducted before filing of the SLP, but the State does not seem to learn its lesson and has only burdened this Court with continuous filing of frivolous 3 2026:HHC:28429 appeals. 6. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to condone the delay, therefore, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Resultantly, the Review Petition would meet the same fate. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Jyotsna Rewal Dua) Judge July 10, 2026 (Shivank Thakur)