Honourable Mr. Justice Jayant Patel

1. The present application is for condonation of delay of 88 days in preferring the review application for recalling of the order dated 21.4.2011 passed by this Court in Misc. Civil Application No. 579 of 2011. We have heard Mr. Rana, learned Counsel for the applicant, Mr. Chauhan, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 upon advance copy and Ms. Thakkar, learned AGP for respondents No. 2 and 3 on the aspects of condonation of delay. Mr. Chauhan has tendered affidavit-in-reply to the application for condonation of delay as well as to the main application for the recalling and reviewing of the order.

2. In order to see that the merits of the matter would be frustrated, we have also heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides on merits of the review application.

3. As such, it appears that the delay is of 88 days and, therefore, the Court may leniently view the delay for exercise of the discretion for condonation of delay. However, it does appear that until Misc. Civil Application No. 901 of 2012 is preferred, it was not intended by the applicant to back out from the statement and it is only thereafter to find out some excuse for the consequence on account of non-compliance of the order, the present review application is filed and as the limitation was over, the application for condonation of delay has been filed. There is no bona fide intention on the part of the applicant in preferring the application for condonation of delay. The delay is also not sufficiently explained, but the said aspect is coupled with the circumstances that the application is filed for invoking discretion with mala fide purpose to back out from the declaration made in the proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act.

4. On the aspects of merits, the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the President or the Chief Officer of the Accountant of the Municipality had no authority and, therefore, it becomes a case for recalling of the order passed by this Court and the declaration recorded therein.

5. We are not at all convinced by the contention for the simple reason that if the persons had no authority and in spite of that, they made statements and if the Court is led to pass the order, such may result into misleading statement and may also invite further consequence for making false declaration before the Court without there being any authority and misleading the Court.

6. We do not find that there is any case for recalling or reviewing of the order even on merits. However, on the aspects of making false declaration before the Court without there being any authority and misleading the Court, we find that no conclusion deserves to be recorded, since MCA No. 901 of 2012 is pending and this Court, in such proceedings, may be in a position to consider the said aspect while examining the conduct on the part of the alleged contemner.

7. In view of the aforesaid, we find that when there is no case on merits, no useful purpose would be served in taking too lenient view on the aspects of delay and then to consider the merits of the matter at a later stage. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, MCA (St.) No. 2162 of 2012 would also not survive and shall stand disposed of. It is observed that the parties shall be at liberty to raise contentions, as may be available in law, in the proceedings of MCA No. 901 of 2012, which is pending before this Court.