Allowed

Shahid Hasan v. State of U.P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2025WRIC/44128/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court condemned the delay in filing an appeal against a recovery order as bona fide and set aside the Commissioner's order rejecting the condonation application. The petition was allowed, and the appeal was directed to be decided expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 01.05.2025 set aside; appeal treated as filed in time; Appellate Authority to decide Appeal No.1232 of 2024 within three months.

Shahid Hasan vs State of U.P and 3 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 44128 of 2025

Shahid Hasan

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Irfan Chaudhary, Srijan Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 40

¶10

HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajeshwar Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel-II for the State-respondents.

¶12

The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has assailed the order dated 01.05.2025 passed by the Commissioner, Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur whereby he has rejected the appeal of the petitioner on the ground of delay.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find it appropriate to invite counter affidavit from the respondents.

¶14

Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that show cause notices dated 23.03.2022 and 23.04.2022 were issued to the petitioner for recovery of Rs.13,57,610/-. It is contended that petitioner has assailed the aforesaid show cause notices in appeal bearing Appeal No.C-202309000000061/2023 which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority by order dated 31.01.2023 on the ground that appeal was not maintainable. It is contended that petitioner, thereafter, preferred writ petition bearing Writ-C No.4301 of 2024 against the order dated 31.01.2023 which was also dismissed by this Court by judgement and order dated 01.03.2024.

¶15

It is contended that petitioner, thereafter, preferred appeal against the recovery order dated 28.05.2022 alongwith delay condonation application explaining the delay in filing the appeal. It is contended that the petitioner has explained the delay sufficiently and properly, and delay in filing the

¶16

WRIC No. 44128 of 2025

¶17

¶18

appeal was bonafide, yet Appellate Authority erroneously rejected the delay condonation application and consequently, dismissed the appeal. Accordingly, it is contended that impugned order cannot be sustained in law.

¶19

Per contra, learned Chief Standing Counsel-II refuting the aforesaid contention has submitted that petitioner has failed to explain the delay in filing the appeal sufficiently. It is contended that there was delay of about two years in filing the appeal against the order dated 28.05.2022, and therefore, the Appellate Authority has not committed any error of law in rejecting the delay condonation application and dismissing the appeal.

¶20

Be that as it may, the petitioner was issued show cause notices dated 23.03.2022 and 23.04.2022 which was assailed by the petitioner in Appeal No.C-202309000000061/2023. When the said appeal of the petitioner was dismissed, he preferred Writ-C No.4301 of 2024 which was also dismissed by this Court. The petitioner, thereafter, on the correct advice preferred appeal registered as Appeal No.1232 of 2024 against the recovery order dated 28.05.2022.

¶21

From the perusal of delay condonation application, it appears that petitioner has preferred appeal against the show cause notices dated 23.03.2022 and 23.04.2022 on erroneous advice and when his writ petition was dismissed, a correct advice was tendered to him that he should prefer appeal against the order of recovery dated 28.05.2022.

¶22

We find that petitioner has rendered plausible explanation for the delay in filing the appeal before the Appellate Authority. The delay in filing the appeal was not deliberate and was bonafide. In such view of the fact, we are of the view that Commissioner, Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur has erred in law in rejecting the delay condonation application of the petitioner and dismissing the appeal without appreciating the correct facts on record.

¶23

In such view of the fact, the order dated 01.05.2025 passed by the Commissioner, Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur is set aside. The delay in filing the Appeal No.1232 of 2024 is condoned, and the appeal shall be treated to have been filed in time.

¶24

Thus, for the reasons given above, the writ petition is allowed . The Appellate Authority i.e. Commissioner, Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur is further directed to decide the Appeal No.1232 of 2024 (Computerised

¶25

WRIC No. 44128 of 2025

¶26

¶27

No.C202409000001232) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶28

December 16, 2025 Sattyarth

¶29

(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)

¶30

Digitally signed by :- SATTYARTH ANAND High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shahid Hasan v. State of U.P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahid Hasan v. State of U.P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Kalindi Devi vs Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited through Its Managing Director and Another

Dheeraj Pandey vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others

Gajendra Singh Bhadoriya vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Bahadur Maurya vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Hamdan @ Mo. Handaan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others