The Prin. Secy. Deptt. of State Tax Lko and 2 Others vs Manish Kumar — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

The Prin. Secy. Deptt. of State Tax Lko and 2 Others vs Manish Kumar — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to appellants: delay condonation application rejected and the Special Appeal dismissed; direction issued that the enquiry into non-compliance of the learned Single Judge's directions be taken to its logical conclusion and not be an eyewash.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 157 days in filing the Special Appeal against the interim order dated 08.08.2025 of the learned Single Judge should be condoned.

Court's answer

The conduct of the officer in not following the directions of the learned Single Judge, and despite the enquiry report having been submitted, choosing to question the order of reinstatement with a delay of 157 days, clearly reflects intentions other than bonafide qua the respondent; consequently there is no reason to condone the delay in filing the appeal.

Ratio / Principle

Since the order dated 08.08.2025 already stands complied with, the delay condonation application is rejected.

Key takeaways

Consequently, the Special Appeal is dismissed.ratio¶¶18
The enquiry initiated by the appellants for non-compliance of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge shall not be an eyewash only and would be taken to its logical conclusion.ratio¶¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Division Bench (Arun Bhansali, CJ and Jaspreet Singh, J) — Special Appeal Defective (SPLAD) No. 152 of 2026 — delay condonation — appeal barred by 157 days — appellants (Principal Secretary, Deptt. of State Tax and others) had not complied with the learned Single Judge's interim order dated 08.08.2025 staying the respondent Manish Kumar's suspension dated 01.07.2025, even though the enquiry report had been submitted on 23.08.2025; reinstatement order dated 14.03.2026 was subsequently passed pursuant to the interim order — the officer's conduct in questioning the reinstatement with such delay, after defying the interim order, held to reflect intentions other than bonafide qua the respondent — delay condonation application rejected — appeal dismissed — State's enquiry against those responsible for non-compliance of the interim order directed not to be an eyewash and to be taken to its logical conclusion. Decided March 16, 2026.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 152 of 2026

The Principal Secretary, Deptt. of State Tax, Lko and 2 others

.....Appellant(s)

	Versus
Manish Kumar	.....Respo	ndent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)	: S.M.Singh Raikwar, Aniruddha Singh, C.S.C.	A.A.G.,
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Ajeet Pratap Singh, Apoorva Abhishek Singh	Tewari,

Chief Justice's Court

HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

This Special Appeal is directed against order dated 08.08.2025 passed by learned Singh Judge whereby on finding a prima-facie case in favour of the respondent, the order of suspension dated 01.07.2025 was ordered to remain stayed.

When the present Special Appeal came up before this Court, it was noticed that the order dated 08.08.2025 had not been complied with and despite the fact that the enquiry report had already been submitted on 23.08.2025 itself.

The appellants were directed to obtain instructions regarding the conduct of the officer in not following the interim order granted by learned Single Judge.

Today a compliance affidavit has been filed inter-alia placing on record the enquiry report and order dated 14.03.2026 reinstating the respondent pursuant to the order dated 08.08.2025 passed by learned Single Judge. Further indications have been made that action has been initiated against those responsible for non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court.

The appeal is barred by 157 days.

SPLAD No. 152 of 2026

2

As noticed hereinbefore, the entire conduct of the officer, in not following the directions of the learned Single Judge and despite the fact that the report of the enquiry officer had been submitted, choosing to question the order of reinstatement with a delay of 157 days clearly reflects that the intentions are other than bonafide qua the respondent.

In those circumstances and the fact that the order dated 08.08.2025 already stands complied with, we do not find any reason to condone the delay in filing the appeal.

The delay condonation application is rejected.

9. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed .

We make it clear that the enquiry, which has been initiated by the appellants for non-compliance of the directions issued by learned Single Judge, shall not be an eyewash only and would be taken to logical conclusion.

(Jaspreet Singh, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

March 16, 2026 nd

Digitally signed by :- NISITH DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench