Saurabh Kumar Singh and 8 Others vs State of U.P. Thru.the Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Medical and Health Services, Lko. — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Saurabh Kumar Singh and 8 Others vs State of U.P. Thru.the Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Medical and Health Services, Lko. — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 250 days in filing Special Appeal Defective No. 646 of 2024 (filed on 12.12.2024 under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952) should be condoned via C.M. Application No.1 of 2024.

Court's answer

The Court found the explanation offered in the affidavit supporting the condonation application unacceptable: the delay of 250 days is inordinate and there is hardly any explanation offered for it.

Ratio / Principle

The affidavit gave no account of the long interval between the appellants receiving communication of the impugned judgment (certified copy obtained 10.12.2024) and their approaching counsel (on 08.11.2024); whatever little explanation was offered was deemed insufficient.

Key takeaways

In view of the Supreme Court decision dated 12.09.2025 in Civil Appeal No.11794 of 2025 (Shivamma (Dead) By LRS vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors), the application for condonation of delay was rejected and, consequently, the appeal stood dismissed.ratio¶¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 1 (Rajan Roy and Abdesh Kumar Chaudhary, JJ.), decision of January 5, 2026 on C.M. Application No.1 of 2024 attached to Special Appeal Defective No. 646 of 2024 (Saurabh Kumar Singh & 8 others v. State of U.P. thru Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Medical and Health Services): the appeal, filed on 12.12.2024 under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 with a delay of 250 days as reported by the Office, sought condonation of delay through a nine-paragraph affidavit. Perusing the explanation in the light of the Supreme Court decision dated 12.09.2025 in Civil Appeal No.11794 of 2025 (Shivamma (Dead) By LRS vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors), the Court found the delay inordinate and the explanation unacceptable: the affidavit did not explain the period between communication of the impugned writ judgment (certified copy obtained 10.12.2024, over a year after the judgment was passed) and the appellants approaching counsel on 08.11.2024. Condonation was accordingly rejected and the appeal dismissed. Counsel for the State informed the Court that similar appeals had been dismissed on merits vide judgment dated 21.02.2025, the leading appeal being Special Appeal No.545 of 2023 (Ramesh Chandra Baghel & Others vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 646 of 2024

Saurabh Kumar Singh And 8 Others

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru.The Prin.Secy. Deptt. Of Medical And Health Services, Lko.

.....Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Annapurna Agnihotri, Sudhir Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

Court No. - 1

HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J.

(C.M. Application No.1 of 2024)

1. Heard.

Learned counsel for the State informs us that similar appeals have also been dismissed on merits vide judgment dated 21.02.2025 leading appeal being Special Appeal No.545 of 2023 [Ramesh Chandra Baghel & Others vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.].

This appeal has been filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 with a delay of 250 days as on 12.12.2024 which is the date of filing of the appeal, as reported by the Office. An application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit has been filed. We have perused the explanation offered therein in the light of recent decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court dated 12.09.2025 rendered in Civil Appeal No.11794 of 2025 'Shivamma (Dead) By LRS vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors' and find the same to be unacceptable. Not only the delay is inordinate but there is hardly any explanation offered for such inordinate delay. Whatever little explanation has been offered is not sufficient. The affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay runs into nine paragraphs. In the second paragraph, the details of the judgment against which the appeal has been preferred has been mentioned. Para 3 of the affidavit states that

SPLAD No. 646 of 2024

2

after receiving communication of the impugned judgment, they contacted their counsel and obtained certified copy on 10.12.2024 i.e. a good more than one year of passing of the impugned judgment. The affidavit does not throw any light as to what transpired in between and what efforts were made by the appellants to contact their counsel to know the status of their writ petition. Para 4 of the affidavit then states that the appellants contacted the counsel on 08.11.2024 along with relevant material seeking opinion without disclosing the name of the counsel who was so contacted. Thereafter, all that the affidavit says is that the counsel who was contacted advised for filing this appeal which was filed on 12.12.2024. This is hardly an acceptable explanation.

Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the application for condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed.

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

January 5, 2026

Shanu/-

Digitally signed by :- SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench