State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others Vs Bhanu Pratap Singh

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 166 of 2025

¶3

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus Bhanu Pratap Singh .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Nishant Shukla, A.C.S.C. Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Sanjay Kumar Singh

¶6

Chief Justice's Court

¶7

HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶8

This review-petition is directed qua order dated 24.07.2025 passed by this Court in Special Appeal (D) No. 305 of 2025 whereby the Special Appeal filed by the State while condoning the delay was dismissed as covered by the decision in State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, U.P. and 3 Others v. Jag Prasad Chaubey in Special Appeal No. 191 of 2024, decided on 06.09.2024.

¶9

The review petition is barred by 34 days. An application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the review-petition based on the documents annexed with the application seeking condonation of delay. It is apparent that only after the order was passed in the writ petition/Special Appeal followed by filing of contempt petition, the facts of the case were examined and apparently a decision was taken to file the review-petition based on certain judgments.

¶10

As repeatedly observed by this Court, on part of the State neither at the stage when the matter is before the learned Single Judge and/or when the appeals are filed, any nature of deliberation takes place and it is only when the contempt petition is filed/the officers are required to remain present before the Court, then for the first time, the merit of the matter is examined and efforts are made to somehow seek the deferment of the contempt proceedings on account of filing of certain proceedings like

¶11

CMRAD No. 166 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

review/appeals.

¶14

Be that as it may, as the delay in the present matter is of 34 days, for the reasons indicated in the application supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. The delay in filing the review-petition, is condoned.

¶15

As noticed hereinbefore, when the Special Appeal came up before this Court which was barred by 168 days, while condoning the delay, when a submission was made on behalf of the counsel for the respondent that the matter was covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Jag Prasad Chaubey (supra), counsel for the appellants did not dispute the said aspect based on which Special Appeal came to be dismissed as covered by judgment in the case of Jag Prasad Chaubey (supra).

¶16

Submissions have been made that against the Division Bench judgment in the case of Jag Prasad Chaubey (supra), Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 45369 of 2025 was filed before Hon'ble Supreme Court which came to be decided on 27.10.2025, wherein though the Special Leave Petition was dismissed on account of the facts involved in the said case, the question of law was kept open.

¶17

Based on the said observations, it was sought to be contended that the order passed in the present case requires re-consideration/review based on the submissions sought to be made.

¶18

Perusal of the documents annexed with the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act reveals that the review was proposed to be sought in the present case on the ground that the facts in the case of Jag Prasad Chaubey (supra) were different from the present case as is evident from Page 12 of the review-petition. However, in the entire review petition, not a word has been indicated as to how the present case is different/distinguishable on facts from the case in Jag Prasad Chaubey (supra).

¶19

The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing the Special Leave Petition inter-alia observed as under:-

¶20

"2. Having considered the matters in depth, we are not persuaded to interfere with the order(s) impugned.

¶21

CMRAD No. 166 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23

3. Though, learned counsel for the petitioners tried to persuade us on the ground that, in some similar matters, notice has been issued, but in view of the particular facts and circumstances of the present cases, and taking into consideration the fact that the respondents herein were selected on a regular basis under the applicable rules, though, not finally regularized and have continued in service, and further that the respondents are already being paid pension and are now advanced in age, we see no reason to interfere in the matter."

¶24

As the appellants have failed to distinguish the present case from that of Jag Prasad Chaubey (supra), wherein on account of the facts involved, Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to interfere, seeking to review of the order on law, cannot be countenanced.

¶25

Besides the above, once Hon'ble Supreme Court has already kept the question of law open for the State in the pending Special Leave Petitions, it is always open for the State to question the validity of the order impugned by way of appropriate proceedings.

¶26

In so far as the present case is concerned, we do not find any reason to entertain the present review-petition, the same, is therefore, dismissed.

¶27

(Jaspreet Singh,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.)

¶28

November 17, 2025 Asheesh/RK/-

¶29

Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others v. Bhanu Pratap Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others v. Bhanu Pratap Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Km. Poonam Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Amar Nath Dwivedi Vs Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, E.P.F.O., New Delhi and Ors.

Ram Prakash Mishra vs Union of India, Ministry of Social Justice Empowerment New Delhi and 6 Others

Gupta Kashi Seva Trust Thru. Its Secy./Managing Trustee Ravi Prakash Chaubey and Another Vs U.O.I. Thru. the Secy. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change New Delhi and 5 Others

Dharm Veer Thru. His Natural Guardian Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh and 16 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

Santosh Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue and 8 Others