ORDER : “Law comes to the assistance of the vigilant not of the sleepy.” - Salmond. Fixing a lifespan for availing legal remedy and object for fixing time limit for litigation is for the purpose of general welfare. Otherwise there would be no end of any litigation unless the limitation is prescribed. 1. This review petition is time barred by 2264 days. The review petitioner (State/Respondents) has approached this Court seeking review of the order dated 07.09.2016 passed by the Court by which the batch of writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners were allowed with the following observations and directions:- “Taking into consideration the facts and the Rules referred to above, I am of the opinion that the respondents should have considered case of the petitioners for grant of study leave as their admission in PG course was after entering into service. The embargo to complete three years service before seeking study leave would not apply to the petitioners being probationers thus cannot be considered to be temporary employees. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to grant study leave as per Rules 110 and 122 of the Rules for a period of 36 months, i.e., the period of PG Course. On completion of the course, petitioners be allowed to join the post. The petitioners would, however, furnish an undertaking along with a bond of Rs.10 lac each to the effect that after completion of PG course they will serve the government for a minimum period of five years. The undertaking along with bond would be furnished by the petitioners within a period of one month from the date of this order.” 2. An application for condonation of delay of 2264 days has been submitted to explain the delay in filing this review petition and the following reasons have been mentioned in paragraph Nos.2 to 4, which are reproduced as under:- 2. That order under review was passed on 07.09.2016. It is submitted that after obtaining the legal opinion the matter was proceeded on various levels and due to administrative reasons and due to the time consumed during worldwide Covid-19 pandemic, in seeking opinion from various levels, and it was finally decided by the State Government and the review petition was prepared and filed. 3. It is submitted that after obtaining the legal opinion the matter was proceeded on various levels and due to administrative reasons and due to the time consumed during worldwide Covid-19 pandemic, in seeking opinion from various levels, and it was finally decided by the State Government and the review petition was prepared and filed. 3. That SB Civil Contempt Petition No.759/2020 was also filed by the petitioner which was disposed off by this Hon’ble Court on 14.07.2022. 4. That the delay caused in filing of the review petition is not coupled with any malafide or deliberate intention rather it is due to aforesaid bonafide reasons, as such it deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice since the applicants have a strong case on merits.” 3. From the aforesaid facts mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, it is clear that the review petitioner/State was completely indolent and lethargic in taking remedy. The impugned order was passed on 07.09.2016. Even according to the petitioner there was worldwide spread of Covid-19 pandemic and time was consumed due to administrative reasons. It is worthy to note here that the lockdown started only from 20.03.2020 and the Hon’ble Apex Court condoned / excluded the delay In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation in Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No.3/2020 where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022. The period commencing from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was excluded in computing the period of limitation. But here in this case, the impugned order was passed on 07.09.2016 while no review petition was filed till 14.03.2020 and even the same was not filed after 01.03.2022 till 14.12.2022. Even if the period of Covid-19 w.e.f. 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 is excluded, this petition is hopelessly time barred by more than four years. The State authority was sitting over this matter for more than four years without any justified reason. 4. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in two recent judicial pronouncements have deprecated such practice on the part of State Authority in sitting over the matter and filing appeals after inordinate delay and coming-forth with the only excuse of matter having remained pending in the Office from one table to the other. 5. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. 5. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. V. Bherulal, 2020 SCC Online SC 849, it was found that the appeal filed by the State was with delay of 663 days. The cause shown for inordinate delay in that case was due to unavailability of documents and the process of arranging documents and also a reference to bureaucratic process works. In the aforesaid factual context, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, referring to its earlier decision, observed as below- “3. No doubt, some leeway is given for the Government inefficiencies but the sad part is that the authorities keep on relying on judicial pronouncements for a period of time when technology had not advanced and a greater leeway was given to the Government (Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107 ). This position is more than elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd. (2012) 3 SCC 563 where the Court observed as under: “(12) It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government. (13) In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay.” Eight years hence the judgment is still unheeded!” 6. In another decision, in the case of Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) V. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 233 also, in the factual context of long delay of 75 days, the explanation was found to be short of any sufficient cause. The explanation in the aforesaid case was noted in para 65 of the said judgment as below - “65. That apart, on the facts of this appeal, there is a long delay of 75 days beyond the period of 60 days provided by the Commercial Courts Act. Despite the fact that a certified copy of the District Court’s judgment was obtained by the respondent on 27.04.2019, the appeal was filed only on09.09.2019, the explanation for delay being: “2. That, the certified copy of the order dated01/04/2013 was received by the appellant on27/04/2019. Thereafter the matter was placed before the CGM purchase MPPKVVCL for the compliance of the order. The same was then sent to the law officer, MPPKVVCL for opinion. 3. That after taking opinion for appeal, and approval of the concerned authorities, the officer-in-charge was appointed vide order dated23/07/2019. 4. Thereafter the matter was placed before the CGM purchase MPPKVVCL for the compliance of the order. The same was then sent to the law officer, MPPKVVCL for opinion. 3. That after taking opinion for appeal, and approval of the concerned authorities, the officer-in-charge was appointed vide order dated23/07/2019. 4. That, thereafter due to bulky records of the case and for procurement of the necessary documents some delay has been caused however, the appeal has been prepared and filed to pursuant to the same and further delay. 5. That due to the aforesaid procedural approval and since the appellant is a public entity formed under the Energy department of the State Government, the delay caused in filing the appeal is bonafide and which deserve[s] to be condoned.” 7. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not satisfied with the cause shown on the above lines and it was held as below : "66. This explanation falls woefully short of making out any sufficient cause. This appeal is therefore allowed and the condonation of delay is set aside on this score also." 8. Clause 124 attached to the Schedule of the Limitation Act 1963 (for short ‘the Act of 1963’) deals with the period of limitation for filing review petition. The limitation for filing review of a judgment by a Court other than Supreme Court, is 30 days. 9. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Popat Bahiru Goverdhana Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in 2013 (10) SCC 765 has held that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The statutory provision may cause hardhip or inconvenience to the particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. 10. Section 5 of the Act of 1963 deals with the provision of Condonation of delay if the reasonable bonafide delay is explained. This provision of condonation of delay has not been enacted by the Legislature to destroy the rights of the other party. The winner is entitled to enjoy the fruits of the case decided in his favour. 10. Section 5 of the Act of 1963 deals with the provision of Condonation of delay if the reasonable bonafide delay is explained. This provision of condonation of delay has not been enacted by the Legislature to destroy the rights of the other party. The winner is entitled to enjoy the fruits of the case decided in his favour. He cannot be deprived to get the benefits of the judgment for indefinitely long period on the ground that the opposite side may assail the judgment before the same Court by way of filing a delayed review petition without giving satisfactory reasons of the delay. There should be an end to the litigation at the same point of time. A sleeping litigant cannot be allowed to awake after a long lapse of time. In the instant case, the review petitioner (State / respondent) was sleeping since 07.09.2016 for more than six years and woke up on 15.12.2022 and realized that the order dated 07.09.2016 is required to be reviewed and recalled. No plausible explanation has been given for this delay of six years in filing this review petition. 11. In the case of Maniben Devraj Shah Vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, reported in 2012 (4) SCC 154 in para No. 14, it is observed and held as under:- “The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The Limitation Act, 1963 has not been enacted with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they approach the Court for vindication of their rights without unreasonable delay. The idea underlying the concept of limitation is that every remedy should remain alive only till the expiry of the period fixed by the Legislature. At the same time, the Courts are empowered to condone the delay provided that sufficient cause is shown by the applicant for not availing the remedy within the prescribed period of limitation.” 12. In the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project, reported in 2008 (17) SCC 448 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:- “The laws of limitation are founded on public policy. Statutes of limitation are sometimes described as “statutes of peace”. An unlimited and perpetual threat of limitation creates insecurity and uncertainty; some kind of limitation is essential for public order. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project, reported in 2008 (17) SCC 448 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:- “The laws of limitation are founded on public policy. Statutes of limitation are sometimes described as “statutes of peace”. An unlimited and perpetual threat of limitation creates insecurity and uncertainty; some kind of limitation is essential for public order. The principle is based on the maxim “interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium”, that is, the interest of the State requires that there should be end to litigation but at the same time laws of limitation are a means to ensure private justice suppressing fraud and perjury, quickening diligence and preventing oppression. The object for fixing time-limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing a lgeneral welparties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his Jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy.” 13. In the case of Basawaraj Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81 , it is observed and held by this Court that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case. It is further observed that the expression “sufficient cause” cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bonafides is attributed to the party. It is further observed that even though limitation may harshly affect rights of a party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed by statute. It is further observed that in case a party has acted with negligence, lack of bonafides or there is inaction, then there cannot be any justified ground for condoning the delay even by imposing conditions. It is observed that each application for condonation of delay has to be decided within the framework laid down by this Court. It is further observed that if courts start condoning delay where no sufficient cause is made out by imposing conditions, then that would amount to violation of statutory principles and showing utter disregard to legislature. 14. In the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (supra), it is observed by this Court that the court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The Courts help those who are vigilant and “do not slumber over their rights”. 15. 14. In the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (supra), it is observed by this Court that the court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The Courts help those who are vigilant and “do not slumber over their rights”. 15. Taking into consideration the cause shown in the present application in the light of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the judgments mentioned in the foregoing paras, this Court finds itself unable to condone the hopeless delay of 2264 days in absence of the sufficient cause. 16. Even otherwise also the batch of writ petitions was allowed by this Court on 07.09.2016 after hearing the arguments of both sides, now this review petition cannot be used as a tool for changing the opinion or view of the Court. The review petition can be entertained only when there in an error apparent on the face of the record. It is not open for this court to re-appreciate the same facts again and reach to a different conclusion. Conclusion once arrived at after appreciating the facts and after hearing the rival sides, cannot be assailed in review petition unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. In the present case the review petitioner has not been able to point out any error apparent on the face of the record, but on the contrary under the guise of the instant review petition, the petitioner is challenging the order passed by this court which is under review. 17. In view of the discussions made herein above, this Court does not find any error apparent on the face of the record to review or recall the order dated 07.09.2016. No ground is made out to entertain this review petition after a lapse of more than six years. Accordingly application No.22/2023 for condonation of delay is therefore dismissed. The review petition is also dismissed as barred by limitation.