Director,Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad Lko. and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Agriculture Deptt. Lko. and 11 Others

This is an appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 by the appellants challenging the judgment and order dated 27.07.2023 passed in Writ A No.3982 of 2016 (Dalel Singh and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others).

¶14

We have gone through the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay. The affidavit merely states that a direction of the Writ Court was to grant service benefits to the respondents-petitioners No.2 to 12 just as they had been granted to their juniors, however, as their juniors had been granted the said benefits incorrectly, therefore, the same was withdrawn on 12.04.2024, accordingly, the judgment of the Writ Court was complied, in fact what is meant is, once the benefits granted to the juniors had been withdrawn nothing remained to be complied. The said juniors filed a writ petition before this Court wherein the order dated 12.04.2024 was stayed, thereafter, the respondents filed a Contempt Petition bearing No.1193 of 2024 alleging disobedience. The compliance affidavits filed by the appellants before the Contempt Court was rejected on 03.07.2025. A Special Appeal bearing No.230 of 2025 was filed against the order dated 03.07.2025 passed by the Contempt Court which

¶15

SPLAD No. 431 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

was dismissed on 04.08.2025. An S.L.P. was filed against the said order of the Division Bench in Special Appeal No.230 of 2025 which was dismissed on 11.08.2025 thereafter, a fresh order dated 08.08.2025 was passed extending the same benefits to the respondents-petitioners as had been extended to their juniors and a fresh compliance affidavit was filed. This compliance was done subject to any order being passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, however, subsequently, the S.L.P. filed by the appellants was dismissed on 11.08.2025. It is only thereafter that a decision was taken to file Special Appeal against the judgment and order dated 27.07.2023 though the date on which the decision was taken has not been disclosed nor any documentary proof has been annexed in support of this contention. The affidavit thereafter goes on to state that after consulting the lawyers, a request was made to draft the appeal which was drafted and filed. Though the date of filing has not been disclosed in the affidavit as stated earlier it was filed on 03.11.2025.

¶18

In our opinion, the explanation for the inordinate delay of about 800 days' is absolutely unacceptable when tested on the anvil of the recent decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Shivamma (Dead) by LRS vs. Karnatka Housing Board and another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 1969 decided on 12.09.2025. The appellants have proceeded in the matter leisurely, casually and negligently. First they tried to take away the very basis of the Writ Court's judgment by withdrawing the benefits of the juniors to the respondents-petitioners, thereafter, when the orders passed in respect of the juniors was stayed, then they challenged the orders passed by the Contempt Court in Special Appeal and then before the Hon'ble the Supreme Court and only after having failed up to Hon'ble the Supreme Court they took a decision to file a Special Appeal challenging the judgment passed by the Writ Court on 27.07.2023. We are not satisfied with the explanations offered in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay.

¶19

In view of the above, the application for condonation of delay is rejected , consequently, the appeal is also dismissed .

¶20

(Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)

¶21

January 14, 2026 -Piyush-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Director,Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad Lko. and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Agriculture Deptt. Lko. and 11 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Director,Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad Lko. and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Agriculture Deptt. Lko. and 11 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

U.O.I. Thru. Its Secy. Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and 5 Others vs K.N. Pathak and 4 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Housing and Urban Planning Lko and 3 Others vs Satish Kumar Singh and 40 Others

The Chief Engineer, U.P. PWD World Bank Projects Thru. Superintending Engineer, P.W.D. Mathura vs M/S. D.S. Constructions Ltd., New Delhi

Manoj Kumar Menghani @ Manoj Menghani vs Real Estate Regulatory Authority U.P. Lko. Thru. Secy. and 2 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Rural Engineering and 2 Others vs Sant Sevak Prasad Gaur and 2 Others

Rajdev vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 8 Others