Summary
The Court dismissed the State of Goa’s and Vedanta’s delayed review petitions against Goa Foundation II. The petitioners knew of the judgment and supplied no cogent explanation for their substantial delays. Filing after retirement of the judges who decided the case was firmly disapproved as undermining institutional sanctity. The petitions failed on limitation and, independently, because no legitimate review ground was shown.
Issues
- Whether the substantial delay in seeking review was justified and any legitimate ground for review established.
Provisions considered
- Order XLVII Rule 2, Supreme Court Rules, 2013The thirty-day period for seeking review was applied, and no cogent grounds were found to excuse the substantially delayed filings. (¶¶ 1, 2, 3)
Held
- Review must be sought within thirty days of the judgment or order. Both sets of petitioners were aware of the February 2018 judgment but furnished no cogent explanation for their substantially delayed applications. (¶¶ 1, 2)
- The State filed its petitions after one judge’s retirement and Vedanta after the other judge’s retirement. The Court firmly disapproved this practice to preserve the institutional sanctity of its decision-making. The ruling did not establish an automatic bar merely because a judge had retired. (¶ 2)
- Limitation alone warranted dismissal. Independently, no legitimate grounds to review Goa Foundation II had been made out, and the petitions were dismissed on merits as well. Pending applications were disposed of. (¶¶ 3, 4)
Result
Review petitions dismissed on limitation and independently on merits; pending applications disposed of.