Morris Edgar Dan vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:20384-DB

Chief Justice's Court

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 62 of 2025

Appellant :- Morris Edgar Dan Respondent :- State of U.P. and 10 others Counsel for Appellant :- Prabhakar Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- Jagdish Pathak (S.C.), Adarsh Singh, Devansh Misra, Sankalp Narain, Subedar Mishra, Avnish Kumar Rai, Bindeshwari Prashad Tiwari, Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi, Vibhu Rai

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.

¶6

This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.10.2024 passed in Writ-C No.26058 of 2024, whereby the learned Single Judge, while issuing notice to respondents No.4 and 7 to 10 to the writ petition, noticing the fact that in another pending Writ-C No.30896 of 2022, an interim order dated 14.10.2022 has been passed, which is in operation and a withdrawal application has been filed, passed the order of continuation of the order passed on 14.10.2022 till further orders.

¶7

The appeal is barred by 27 days. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed, inter-alia, seeking condonation of delay.

¶8

For the reasons indicated in the application supported by an affidavit, the delay condonation application is allowed. The delay in filling the appeal is condoned.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant made vehement submissions that the learned Single Judge was not justified in passing the order dated 23.10.2024 on assumption that Writ-C No.30896 of 2022,

¶10

which continues to remain pending, would be withdrawn and to continue an order which was passed on 14.10.2022 in another writ petition without examining the locus standi of the petitioner in Writ-C No.26058 of 2024. Further submissions have been made pertaining to the merits of the case essentially questioning the passing of the order dated 14.10.2022 passed in Writ-C No.30896 of 2022.

¶11

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the order impugned. Submissions have been made that already an application seeking withdrawal of Writ-C No.30896 of 2022 has been filed and only an order in this regard is required to be passed. However, in case the withdrawal was permitted, the same would harm the Institution and, therefore, the present petition was filed.

¶12

Submissions have also been made that the reason indicated for withdrawal of the writ petition, itself stands stayed in Writ-C No.12640 of 2024 on 07.05.2024, against which Special Appeal No.538 of 2024 has been disposed of by this Court on 05.12.2024 noticing the fact that Writ-C No.34333 of 2015 is required to be adjudicated at an early date and, therefore, the appeal deserves dismissal.

¶13

We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record.

¶14

It is not in dispute that the order impugned in the writ petition dated 03.08.2022, as modified by order dated 11.08.2022, was challenged by filing Writ-C No.30896 of 2022, wherein on 14.10.2022 an interim order was passed by the Writ Court. The said order was not challenged and the same continued to be in operation. Now in the said writ petition, a withdrawal application has been filed seeking to withdraw the writ petition for the reasons

¶15

indicated in the said application pertaining to the reinstatement of status of the appellant herein as Bishop. Qua the said order admittedly in Writ-C No.12640 of 2024, an interim order has been passed and Special Appeal against the said order has been disposed of.

¶16

Once an application seeking withdrawal of the writ petition, wherein an interim order dated 14.10.2022 is in operation, has been filed, on account of likelihood of its imminent withdrawal, the respondents appear to have approached the Court by filing the present writ petition being Writ-C No.26058 of 2024. Once the order dated 14.10.2022 has remained in operation for over two years without the same being challenged, questioning the validity of the said order, which has been reiterated in the present writ petition only on account of the fact that a withdrawal application in Writ-C No.30896 of 2022 has been filed, apparently cannot be countenanced.

¶17

So far as the challenge sought to be raised to the locus standi of the petitioner in the present writ petition is concerned, the appellant is yet to file his counter affidavit and raise issues pertaining to the locus standi. The said issue only on filing of the counter affidavit would be decided by the learned Single Judge and the said aspect cannot be examined at this stage without there being any pleadings on the said subject before the Writ Court.

¶18

We notice that while deciding the Special Appeal No.538 of 2024, exhaustive directions were issued based on the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2021 regarding disposal of Writ-C No.34333 of 2015, which reads as under:-

¶19

"5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition preferred by respondent no.4, inter-alia, passed the following order:-

¶20

"We are informed that the Writ C No. 34333/2015, which is the

¶21

concerned case, is now listed on 10.11.2021 along with pending application(s), including substitution application(s). The pleadings are stated to be complete. We expect all the parties not to seek any adjournments and to assist the court on that date so that the learned Single Judge is able to take a final view of the matter in the proceedings to be held on that date.

¶22

8. It is submitted that in none of the petitions, next date is fixed. In view thereof, with the agreement of the parties, Writ-C No. 34333 of 2015 would come up before the learned Single Judge on 09.01.2025 along with all connected petitions."

¶23

However, apparently on 09.01.2025, despite the matter getting listed before the learned Single Judge, the same has not been decided/taken up.

¶24

Counsel for the respondents submit that counter affidavits in those petitions have not been filed. In case, the petitions which are pending since the year 2015, any party chooses not to file the counter affidavit, they cannot be forced to file the same and once Hon'ble Supreme Court had way back in the year 2021 expected the matter to be decided on 10.11.2021 and more than three years have passed since then, the same has to be decided based on the available pleadings.

¶25

We reiterate the directions issued by this Court in Special Appeal No.538 of 2024 and expect that the matter shall be heard and decided with utmost expedition.

¶26

With the above observations, the appeal stands disposed of. Order Date :- 13.2.2025 SL/ Jyotsana

¶27

(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

¶28

Digitally signed by :- SHYAM LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Morris Edgar Dan v. State of U.P. and 10 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Morris Edgar Dan v. State of U.P. and 10 Others

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

Ritu Agarwal vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others

Chawla Tyers Zone through Sumit Chawla vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

M/S Ibroad Connect Private Limited vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anil Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Islam vs Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad and 2 Others

Savita Tomar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others