Dismissed

State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Education Basic Education Lko. and 5 Others v. C/M Vikram Singh Vidyalaya Prithvipur Thru. Manager and Another

Allahabad HC11 Apr 2025SPLAD/152/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This intra-court appeal regarding a defective service of judgment was dismissed. The Allahabad High Court rejected the application to condone the 1391-day delay as the State failed to offer a plausible justification, citing Supreme Court precedents that condonation is an exception.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay was rejected and the intra-court appeal was dismissed.

State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20536-DB

¶2

Court No. - 1

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 152 of 2025

¶4

Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Education Basic Education Lko. And 5 Others Respondent :- C/M Vikram Singh Vidyalaya Prithvipur Thru. Manager And Another Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- Jitendra Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶6

This intra-court appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of The Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 is delayed by 1391 days. The application seeking condonation of delay is supported with an affidavit.

¶7

It is an admitted position that the judgment passed by this Court was served upon the State on 10.06.2019. Since when, except the ministerial exercise of the file moving from one table to another, no plausible explanation has been offered in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, rather the direction issued is stated to have been carried out. The contempt proceedings relate to the manner in which compliance has been made rather disobedience.

¶8

Explanation by the State for the inordinate delay in instituting the proceeding arising out of the judgement and order passed by the writ court is not a mere formality. Plausible justification is bound to exist for making a prayer seeking condonation of delay on day to day basis.

¶9

Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Postmaster Genral and others Vs. Living Media India Limited and another reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563 and

¶10

Union of India(UOI) and others Vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through his L.R. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 489 wherein it was observed that where the file was kept pending for several months/years there should not be an usual explanation of the delay. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments.

¶11

The routine explanation as is the case at hand does not persuade us to condone the delay, therefore, the application for condonation of delay in our humble consideration fails.

¶12

The application for condonation of delay is accordingly rejected and consequently the appeal also stands dismissed .

¶13

(A. K. Srivastava-I,J.) (A. R. Masoodi,J.)

¶14

Order Date :- 11.4.2025 Mahesh

¶15

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

State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Education Basic Education Lko. and 5 Others v. C/M Vikram Singh Vidyalaya Prithvipur Thru. Manager and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Education Basic Education Lko. and 5 Others v. C/M Vikram Singh Vidyalaya Prithvipur Thru. Manager and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

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

U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Mines New Delhi and 2 Others Vs Abhinandan Srivastava

Anuj Kumar Pandey and Another Vs Ashok Kumar Saxena and 2 Others

Rajesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and 3 Others