Manoj Kumar Pandey and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical and Health Services Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Manoj Kumar Pandey and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical and Health Services Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 373 days in filing the special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 should be condoned on the explanation offered in the supporting affidavit. +1 more

Court's answer

The explanation offered in the affidavit for condoning the 373-day delay is unacceptable: the delay is inordinate and there is hardly any explanation offered for it; whatever little explanation was offered is not sufficient.

Ratio / Principle

The condonation affidavit throws no light on what transpired during the period between receipt of communication of the impugned judgment and the appellants contacting counsel, and does not disclose the efforts made to ascertain the status of the writ petitions, rendering the explanation unacceptable.

Key takeaways

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

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Condonation of delay refused - Special Appeal (Defective) No. 651 of 2024 filed on 16.12.2024 under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 with a delay of 373 days, challenging two separate orders passed in two separate writ petitions. The condonation affidavit (nine paragraphs) disclosed that certified copies were obtained only on 09.12.2024, 11.12.2024 and 12.12.2024, more than a year after the impugned judgment, and remained silent on what transpired in the intervening period and on efforts to ascertain the status of the writ petitions. Perusing the affidavit in the light of the Supreme Court's recent decision dated 12.09.2025 in Shivamma (Dead) By LRS vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors, Civil Appeal No.11794 of 2025, the Court held the explanation unacceptable, rejected condonation of delay, and dismissed the appeal. State counsel had also observed that clubbing two orders from two writ petitions into one appeal is impermissible under the Rules of the Court; that point was not separately adjudicated.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 651 of 2024

Manoj Kumar Pandey And 3 Others

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Medical And Health Services Lko. And 3 Others

.....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.]. He also states that in fact the appeal is not in proper format as two separate orders passed in two separate writ petitions albeit of similar nature have been challenged by filing one appeal which is impermissible under the Rules of the Court.

This appeal has been filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 with a delay of 373 days as on 16.12.2024 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

SPLAD No. 651 of 2024

2

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 after receiving communication of the impugned judgment, they contacted their counsel and obtained certified copy on 09.12.2024, 11.12.2024 and 12.12.2024 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 12.12.2024 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 16.12.2024. 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