Kuldeep Ramesh Kshirsagar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And Ors

Held

The Court condoned the delay of 75 days in filing the Interim Application, finding the reasons provided to be satisfactory. Consequently, the Court recalled its earlier order dismissing the Writ Petition for want of prosecution and restored the petition to the file. The Interim Application was disposed of. The Court directed that GST be impleaded as Respondent No.5 and ordered the Petitioner to serve a copy of the petition to all respondents. Affidavits in reply were to be filed within three weeks, and the matter was listed for further hearing. The reasoning appears to be based on the Court's discretion to allow parties to pursue their legitimate grievances when procedural lapses are adequately explained and do not prejudice the opposing parties, thereby ensuring justice is done. No specific GST provisions were discussed in relation to the substantive merits of the writ petition at this stage.

Facts

The applicant, Kuldeep Ramesh Kshirsagar, filed Interim Application No. 6793 of 2026 in Writ Petition No. 15330 of 2025. The applicant sought to amend the petition to implead GST as a party respondent. The delay of 75 days in filing the interim application was condoned. The Court recalled its previous order dismissing the Writ Petition for want of prosecution and restored the petition to the file. The Court heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and requested appearance from the respondents, including the proposed Respondent No.5 - GST. The Petitioner was directed to serve a copy of the petition, and respondents were given three weeks to file an affidavit in reply. The petition was listed for hearing on October 6, 2026, and ordered to be tagged with another writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 75 days in filing the Interim Application should be condoned, and if so, whether the order dismissing the Writ Petition for want of prosecution should be recalled and the petition restored to file, turning on the Court's inherent powers to correct its own records and ensure substantial justice. Contentions: Petitioner: Argued that the delay was unintentional and sought condonation to pursue the substantive writ petition. Relied on the principle that procedural delays should not defeat substantive rights if sufficient cause is shown. Revenue/State: No specific arguments recorded in the judgment regarding the condonation of delay or restoration of the petition.