Committee of Management, Vimla Devi Brijmohan Singh Inter College, Sarai Prayag, Kannauj and Anoth Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Committee of Management, Vimla Devi Brijmohan Singh Inter College, Sarai Prayag, Kannauj and Anoth Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay of 89 days in filing the appeal condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act; no interference with the learned Single Judge's interim order dated 13.05.2025; appellants to pursue vacation of the interim order before the learned Single Judge with expedition.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 89 days in filing the Special Appeal Defective should be condoned on the application made under Section 5 of the Limitation Act supported by affidavit. +1 more

Court's answer

The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act supported by affidavit is allowed for the reasons indicated in the application, and the delay of 89 days in filling the appeal is condoned.

Ratio / Principle

Having gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the Bench finds no reason to interfere with the order impugned in this appeal.

Key takeaways

The appellants, having already filed their response to the writ petition and an application seeking vacation of the interim order, need to pursue that application before the learned Single Judge, and the matter shall be heard and decided with expedition.ratio¶¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Chief Justice's Court), bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra, disposed of Special Appeal Defective No. 739 of 2025 filed by the Committee of Management, Vimla Devi Brijmohan Singh Inter College, Sarai Prayag, Kannauj against the learned Single Judge's order dated 13.05.2025 granting interim stay of the order dated 05.04.2025 of the Regional Joint Director of Education (Secondary), Kanpur Region Kanpur/Regional Level Committee. Though the appeal was barred by 89 days, delay was condoned on an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act supported by affidavit. Noting the Single Judge's prima facie view that, since the appellants' writ petition against the order dated 07.06.2017 was pending before the Court, the order impugned in that writ petition could not have been passed, the Bench found no reason to interfere with the order under challenge and left the appellants to pursue their application seeking vacation of the interim order before the learned Single Judge, expressing no doubt that the writ petitions would be heard and decided with expedition.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 739 of 2025

Committee of Management, Vimla Devi Brijmohan Singh Inter College, Sarai Prayag, Kannauj and another

.....Appellant(s)

	Versus
State of U.P. and 5 others		.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Vinod Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Meenakshi Singh Kumar Saxena	(A.C.S.C.), Yogesh

Chief Justice's Court

HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

This appeal is directed against order dated 13.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby while entertaining the writ petition, the interim order has been granted staying the effect and operation of the order dated 05.04.2025 passed by the Regional Joint Director of Education (Secondary), Kanpur Region Kanpur/Regional Level Committee.

The appeal is barred by 89 days.

An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act alongwith an affidavit has been filed. For the reasons indicated in the application supported by affidavit, the same is allowed. Delay in filling the appeal is condoned.

Counsel for the appellants attempted to make submissions on merit of the writ petition pending before the learned Single Judge. However, it is apparent that learned Single Judge while granting interim order, has prima facie come to the conclusion that on account of passing of the order dated 07.06.2017 against which writ petition filed by the appellants was pending before this Court, the order impugned in the present writ petition could not be passed and passed the interim order. Further direction has been given to list the writ petition alongwith pending writ petition filed by the appellants.

SPLAD No. 739 of 2025

2

Having gone through the order passed by learned Single Judge, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. The appellants have already filed response to the writ petition and application seeking vacation of the interim order. The appellants need to pursue the said application before the learned Single Judge and we have no doubt that the matter shall be heard and decided with expedition.

With the above observations, the appeal stands disposed of.

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

September 24, 2025 RK/Sazia

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad