Allowed

Suneel Kumar Prajapati v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Allahabad HC27 Aug 2018SPLAD/548/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge dismissed a second writ petition as premature, but this Special Appeal Bench allowed the appeal, finding the first petition open only for representation and no second petition pending, thus remanding to consider merits on limitation breach grounds (first appeal often barred abatement).

What did the court decide?

set aside the impugned order dated 20.07.2018 and remand the matter for examination of the writ petition on merits.

Suneel Kumar Prajapati Vs State of U.P. and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 548 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Suneel Kumar Prajapati Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Arvind Kumar Srivastava,Bhaju Ram Pprasad Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jay Ram Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶5

This appeal is barred by limitation from 1 day.

¶6

Having considered the facts stated in the application seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the appellant had justifiable reason to state that for a bonafide reason, he was prevented for filing the appeal in time, accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶7

This appeal is before us to examine correctness of the order dated 20th July, 2018 passed by learned single Bench in Writ A- No.15343 of 2018. The order aforesaid reads as follows:-

¶8

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents and learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 and 4.

¶9

The petitioner has earlier filed Writ-A No.33983 of 2017 for the same cause of action, which was disputed by order dated 2.8.2017.

¶10

Thus, the present writ petition is the second writ petition and, therefore, it is not maintainable. Consequently, it is dismissed."

¶11

It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant-petitioner is that the appellant-petitioner did not file two petitions for same cause simultaneously and as such learned single Bench erred in dismissing the petition for writ.

¶12

It is brought to our notice that as a matter of fact a petition for writ i.e. Writ-A No.33983 of 2017 was preferred by the appellant-petitioner and that came to be decided on 2nd August, 2017 by keeping it open for the petitioner to pursue his representation. In pursuance to the order dated 2nd August, 2017, the appellant-petitioner submitted a representation to the authority competent on 16th August, 2017 but the same was not disposed of for months together and, therefore, ultimately he approached this Court by way of filing a petition for writ on 8th July, 2018 to get his grievances examined on merits.

¶13

It is asserted that on 8th July, 2018 no other petition for writ was pending and, therefore, the dismissal of the petition for writ by treating the same as a second petition is absolutely erroneous.

¶14

On going through the record, we find force in the argument advanced.

¶15

As already stated, at the first instance the appellant-petitioner filed a petition for writ that came to be disposed of on 2nd August, 2017. In the order dated 2nd August, 2017, it is quite specifically mentioned that the case of the appellant-petitioner is only for disposal of his representation said to be pending before the concerned authority. The writ petition aforesaid thus was disposed of leaving it open for the petitioner to pursue his representation. The second petition for writ was filed by the appellant-petitioner after filing a reminder representation on 16th August, 2017. He waited for disposal of the representation for a period of good 11 months. As a matter of fact after waiting for such a huge period, he had no option but to approach this Court by way of filing a petition for writ for adjudication of his grievance on merits as earlier the petition was pressed only for disposal of representation. If the authority competent has not decided that for good eleven months then that is to be treated as deemed to be rejected. If the view taken by learned single Bench be accepted then that would amount to render the appellant-petitioner remediless.

¶16

In view of whatever stated above, the order dated 20th July, 2018 passed by learned single Bench deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 20th July, 2018 is set aside. The matter is remanded to learned single Bench for examination of the petition for writ on merits.

¶17

Order Date :- 27.8.2018 Bhaskar

¶18

(Chandra Dhari Singh, J.) (Govind Mathur, J.)

Suneel Kumar Prajapati v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suneel Kumar Prajapati v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bare Singh Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Kumar Bharti Vs SBI and 3 Ors.

Km. Sweta Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Mithilesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Upendra Bahadur Singh Vs District Inspector of Schools Azamgarh and 2 Others

C/M Janta U.M.V. Thr. Manager Surendra Pratap Singh and Anr. Vs C/M Janta U.M.V. Thr. Manager Jawahar Lal and 6 Othrs.