Allowed

Priyam Anand Shiksha Prasar Samiti and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC14 Oct 2019SPLAD/897/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this intra-court special appeal, the High Court bench allowed the special appeal dated 14.10.2019 regarding condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The main special appeal text also dismissed the appeal against the Single Judge's order in a writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay in filing the appeal; Special Appeal dismissed.

Priyam Anand Shiksha Prasar Samiti and Another Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 897 of 2019

¶3

Appellant :- Priyam Anand Shiksha Prasar Samiti And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Devesh Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Devesh Mishra, learned counsel for appellant, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents-1 to 3 and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent-4.

¶6

This intra Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1952') has been filed against judgment and order dated 24.10.2017 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing petitioners' Writ Petition No.46906 of 2017.

¶7

Aforesaid writ petition was filed by appellants in August 2017 seeking a mandamus commanding respondents to make entire payment in respect of 'MidDay Meal' from August 2010 to December 2010 and lift the order of blacklisting of petitioners' Society passed by District Magistrate, Kannuj in pursuance of report dated 23.05.2016 and also to decide petitioners' representation dated 13.04.2017.

¶8

Learned Single Judge has dismissed writ petition observing that no factual foundation was laid on record to show, for which month Mid-Day Meal was actually supplied. Averments made in writ petition were very vague. hence, no direction for payment with respect to alleged supply has been found justified.

¶9

So far as blacklisting part is concerned, petitioners had not challenged any order of blacklisting, therefore, in absence of such challenge order of blacklisting, could not have been interfered.

¶10

Even before this Court, learned counsel for appellants could not show any

¶11

factual foundation in this regard. Moreover, we find that alleged non payment in respect of supply made from August 2010 to December 2010 was raised in August 2019 in the writ petition, by which time even suit for recovery of money, would have barred by limitation. No reason or explanation has come forward either in writ petition or in this appeal for such delay and laches.

¶12

In view thereof, we do not find any justification to interfere in the judgment passed by learned Single Judge.

¶13

Appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed accordingly.

¶14

Order Date :- 14.10.2019 Manish Himwan

¶15

Court No. - 34

¶16

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 897 of 2019

¶17

¶18

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶19

This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal.

¶20

Heard.

¶21

Learned counsel for respondents do no propose to file any written objection and states that Court may proceed further to pass appropriate order.

¶22

Cause shown in sufficient.

¶23

Delay in filing appeal is hereby condoned.

¶24

Application, accordingly, stands allowed.

¶25

Order Date :- 14.10.2019 Manish Himwan

¶26

(Order on Delay Condonation Application)

Priyam Anand Shiksha Prasar Samiti and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyam Anand Shiksha Prasar Samiti and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raman Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Devendra Singh Parihar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Pooja and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Triveni Prasad Srivastava and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Secretary Deptt. of P.W.D. Govt. of U.P.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Heerakali and 6 Others

Kanchan Kumari and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others