Santosh Kumar Singh Yadav v. Chief Of The Army Staff

1. Memo of appearance filed by Shri D.K. Pandey, Advocate on behalf of the respondents is taken on record.

2. Present: None for the applicant. Shri D.K. Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the respondents.

3. The case was taken up in the revised list. None appeared for the applicant.

4. Office vide report dated 31.01.2019 has reported as under:—

“1. Review Application along with delay condonation application had been filed by Counsel for the applicant on 17.01.2019 to review the order dated 01.02.2017 in O.A. 33/2011. On scrutiny it has been observed that said order has already been reviewed vide order dated 01.03.2017 in TA No 06/2017 and further review is not permissible as per Rule 18(4) of the AFT (Procedure) Rules, 2008.

2. The applicant has also filed an appeal bearing Diary No 33310/2017 in Hon'ble the Supreme Court challenging the order dated 01.03.2017 in RA 06/2017 and order dated 01.02.2017 in OA 33/2017. The appeal has been dismissed vide order of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 12-02-2018 (placed at Annexure no 4). Defects to this effect had been notified on the same date i.e. 17.01.2019 and applicant/Counsel had been allowed 15 days to rectify the same.

3. Now, the Counsel for the applicant has filed an application contesting the defects raised by the Registry.

4. As per order dated 01.02.2017, there is delay of 01 year, 08 months and 28 days in filing of this Review Application.

5. …..”

5. Since none is present on behalf of the applicant and the defects mentioned by the Office have not been rectified, therefore, the review application is dismissed on the ground of delay as well as for non prosecution.