(c) The court may extend the deadline set for the filing of a petition as stated in sub-regulations (a) and (b), after it has given the respondent an opportunity to respond to the request for an extension, if it deems it justified.
- The court may reject a petition if it finds that in the circumstances of the case there was a delay
when submitted, even if it was submitted within one of the deadlines in accordance with Regulation 3.
- A delay in obtaining an objection to tender proceedings may harm the functioning of the public authority, the general public that uses the services in which the tender is engaged, and the interests of the other participants in the tender and the parties with whom they contracted for the purposes of the tender, and therefore "it is therefore understood that a party who did not act in a timely manner to obtain relief can cause harm to a range of complex interests, and in these circumstances, it will be justified, in appropriate cases, to reject his petition due to" (High Court of Justice 8696/22 Avraham Yitzhak in Tax Appeal v. State of Israel et al. [Nevo] (2023)).
- The period of delay can be extended as stated in Regulation 3(c), but the Petitioner did not at any stage apply for an extension.
Moreover, the rule is that "speeding up the filing of a petition is of greater importance with regard to petitions against tenders". In other words, in appropriate cases, a petition must be filed even before the 45-day period has passed.
(Administrative Petition (Jerusalem) 27323-05-12 Anexco Ashalim in Tax Appeal v. Inter-Ministerial Tenders Committee [Nevo] (2012); Administrative Petition (Jerusalem) 1888/09 Edri v. Minister of Construction and Housing [Nevo] (2009)).
- As has been ruled more than once, "the claim of delay rests on three foundations: an objective element, which focuses on the reliance of the Authority and other parties and on the change in their situation for the worse as a result of the passage of time from the time of the administrative decision, and at least from the time it became known to the Petitioner until the filing of the petition; A subjective element, which focuses on examining the defects that occurred in the Petitioner's conduct due to the passage of time, including whether she 'slept on her rights', in a manner that indicates a waiver of legal clarification of her claims;and a normative element, which focuses on the extent of the harm to the rule of law or an important public interest..." (Administrative Petition (Center) 13945-09-22 Attorneys for the Promotion of Good Administration v. Shoham Local Council et al. [Nevo] (2023), and the references there at paragraph 16; see: High Court of Justice 8696/22 supra and the references there [Nevo]).
- From the general to the individual. As detailed above, the delay race began at the latest with the Municipality's notice to the Petitioner on December 29, 2024. The Petitioner acted vigorously and received all the necessary material as early as January 6, 2025. However, she did not file the petition until 58 days after receiving the notice.
This is not a slight delay, but a substantial delay. In the circumstances of the case, it would have been expected that the Petitioner would file the petition shortly after receiving all the material, at the latest within 45 days of the notice she received, and certainly not more than 52 days after the date on which she had all the material.