RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--- At the very out set the petition is barred by 31 days in that the impugned order of the High Court was passed on 25.10.2001 in the writ petition field by the petitioners whereas instant petition for leave to appeal was filed on 24.1.2002. Office has objected to the entertainment of the petition as being barred by 31 days.
2. Petitioners, in their application for condonation of delay , instead of explaining and accounting for each day's delay agitated that they have a good prima facie case they would suffer in separable loss if the delay is not condoned. On our query, learned counsel attempted to explain that the petitioners did not know about the decision of the writ petition. Be that as it may, since the petitioners themselves had invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, it was for them to keep a track of the proceedings and to know as to when was the petition listed for hearing and disposed of petitioners, in our view, cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own wrong. No other ground has been agitated in support of this application, which is completely misconceived and ill founded.
3. Resultantly, this petition, being barred by time, dismissed and leave to appeal refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.