Dismissed¶9

Dhunni Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education Lko and Others

Allahabad HC10 Apr 2025SPLAD/150/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; special appeal defective; intra-court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 Allahabad High Court Rules 1952; 561-day delay; medical grounds; general affidavit explanation; vigilance and plausibility of cause; heavy latches in writ proceedings; rejection of appeal; Dhunni Prasad v. State of U.P.; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; coram Attau Rahman Masoodi and Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, JJ.; order dated 10.4.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:20225-DB.

What did the court decide?

None - the delay-condonation application was rejected and, consequently, the Special Appeal was rejected. ¶9

Dhunni Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education Lko and Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None - the delay-condonation application was rejected and, consequently, the Special Appeal was rejected.

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the 561-day delay in filing the intra-court Special Appeal, sought to be excused on medical grounds and by a general affidavit explanation, ought to be condoned.

¶6

Court's answer

The medical-ground documents relied on did not show that the alleged cause obstructed the course of legal remedy for more than a limited period, and the affidavit offered only a general explanation.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

The explanation offered did not satisfy the criteria which would enable the Court to condone the delay on any relevant consideration; explanation of delay is not an empty formality unless the appellant is vigilant and the cause shown is plausible.

¶7

Key takeaways

Even the underlying writ proceedings had been resorted to after heavy latches, so the appellant's laxity in approaching the Court was inexplicable and deserved rejection.ratio¶8
The application for condonation of delay was rejected, and consequently the Special Appeal itself was also rejected.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Division Bench of Attau Rahman Masoodi and Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, JJ., order dated 10.4.2025 (Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC-LKO:20225-DB): Intra-court Special Appeal Defective No. 150 of 2025, filed by Dhunni Prasad against the State of U.P. under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, was delayed by 561 days and accompanied by an affidavit-supported application for condonation of delay. Documents invoked on medical grounds did not show that the cause obstructed the legal remedy for more than a limited period; the affidavit offered only a general explanation, which failed the Court's criteria for condonation. The Court further observed, as recorded in the impugned order, that the underlying writ proceedings had themselves been initiated after heavy latches. Condonation application rejected; consequently the Special Appeal rejected.

Dhunni Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education Lko and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhunni Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education Lko and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dr. Neeraj Gupta Vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Animal Husbandry and Farmer Welfare New Delhi and 5 Others

Smt. Gurdeep Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Anand Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical and Health Lko. and 3 Others

Manoj Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Deptt. of Appointment Anubhag U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Vipin Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and Ors.

Khushnuma Brick Field through its Proprietor Sri Sahadat Ali Vs Member Secretary, U.P. Pollution Control Board and Anr.