Disposed¶28

Committee of Management, Jai Prakash Degree College v. State of Up and 4 Others

Allahabad HC23 Mar 2026SPLAD/66/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

condonation of delay; 382 days delay; special appeal defective; SPLAD No. 66 of 2026; Allahabad High Court; Division Bench; interim order; writ petition not heard; Section 5 Limitation Act; inordinate delay; counter affidavit not filed; vacation of interim order; election recognition; Committee of Management Jai Prakash Degree College; State of UP; Writ - C No. 40642 of 2024; listing on 16.04.2026; expedition; priority.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellant on merits: the application for condonation of delay was dismissed; the appeal was disposed of with a direction that the writ petition be listed before the learned Single Judge on 16.04.2026, with the expectation that it be given priority and heard with expedition. ¶28

Committee of Management, Jai Prakash Degree College Vs State of Up and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 382 days in filing the special appeal against the interim order dated 06.12.2024 should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

Merely because, after an interim order has been granted by the learned Single Judge in the presence of the other party, the writ petition/stay application cannot be heard within a given period, that by itself cannot be a reason to question the validity of the interim order with inordinate delay, seeking condonation of delay on that ground.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The reason projected in the application seeking condonation of the 382 days' delay was held to be insufficient for the purpose.

¶26

Key takeaways

The failure of the appellant to file the counter affidavit to the writ petition or an application seeking vacation of the interim order necessarily showed that the plea of non-hearing was projected only with a view to seek condonation of delay.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Arun Bhansali, CJ. and Kshitij Shailendra, J.), Special Appeal Defective No. 66 of 2026, decided 24.03.2026 — Condonation of delay — Special appeal against interim order dated 06.12.2024 in Writ - C No. 40642 of 2024 (restraining recognition of elections of an institution without leave of the Court) barred by 382 days — Plea that the writ petition was not being heard after the interim order held insufficient, especially as neither counter affidavit nor application for vacation of the interim order had been filed — Held: non-hearing of the writ petition/stay application after an interim order passed in the presence of counsel is, by itself, no ground to challenge the interim order with inordinate delay — Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act dismissed; appeal disposed of; writ petition directed to be listed on 16.04.2026 to be heard with expedition.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 66 of 2026

¶3

Committee of Management, Jai Prakash Degree College

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of UP and 4 others		.	....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Gajendra Pratap Kumar Srivastava	(Sr.	Adv.), Jitendra
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Ashok Pushpendra Kum Prakash Rai	Kha ar	re (Sr. Adv.), Yadav, Shashi

¶6

Chief Justice's Court

¶7

HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

¶8

This appeal is directed against interim order dated 06.12.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ - C No. 40642 of 2024, whereby learned Single Judge ordered in relation to the institution in question that if the elections have already not been recognized, the same will not be recognized without leave of the Court.

¶9

The appeal is barred by 382 days.

¶10

An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed supported by affidavit seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

¶11

Submissions have been made that there exists a circumstantial delay in filing the appeal. The delay was occasioned on account of the fact that the appellant was waiting for the hearing of the writ petition and it was advised, at the time of passing of the interim order, not to file the special appeal but on account of continuous adjournments by respondent Nos. 4 and 5, the appellant has been advised to file the present special appeal.

¶12

Based on the said submissions, it is claimed that there is no wilful or deliberate delay in filing the present appeal. Further indication has been made that under legal advice, the appeal was not filed when the order impugned was passed. Based on the said submissions, it has been prayed

¶13

SPLAD No. 66 of 2026

¶14

¶15

that the appeal be treated as within limitation.

¶16

Counsel for the appellant questioned the validity of the order impugned. Submissions were made that both the indications made in the order regarding the order of Vice-Chancellor directing the Committee of Management to hold election being under challenge and as to whether Society or Trust would run the institution is still engaging attention of the University are factually incorrect inasmuch as the Vice-Chancellor has only nominated the Election Officer and not ordered for holding of the elections and that no proceedings are pending at the level of the University and therefore, the order impugned passed, based on the said contentions as noticed, deserves to be set aside.

¶17

Counsel for the respondents contested the application seeking condonation of delay. Submissions were made that only on account of alleged non-hearing of the matter by the learned Single Judge, cannot be a reason for seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal after more than one year of passing of the order. Further submissions have been made that on the one hand, the respondents are being accused of getting the matter adjourned, however, on part of the appellant, neither reply to the writ petition nor application seeking vacation of the interim order has been filed and therefore, the non-hearing of the matter is at the behest and due to the conduct of the appellant itself. Submissions have been made that the order impugned before the learned Single Judge is ex-facie illegal and against the law and therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in passing the order impugned, which even otherwise does not call for any interference.

¶18

We have considered the submissions made and have perused the material available on record.

¶19

As noticed, the appeal is barred by 382 days.

¶20

The only plea raised in the application seeking condonation of delay apparently is that after grant of interim order in presence of counsel for the appellant, the matter is not getting heard. The limited order sheets, which have been placed on record, indicate that while granting the interim order on 06.12.2024, the matter was ordered to be listed 'as fresh' on

¶21

SPLAD No. 66 of 2026

¶22

¶23

06.01.2025 and on that date, the matter was adjourned at the instance of the respondent herein and on the next occasion, i.e., on 24.03.2025, at the request of the appellant, the matter was got adjourned.

¶24

It is surprising that on the one hand a grievance qua the grant of interim order is being made and the fact that the matter is not getting heard is being projected as the reason for filing the special appeal, but so far neither the counter affidavit to the petition nor application seeking vacation of the interim order has been filed, which necessarily shows that only with a view to seek condonation of delay, the plea pertaining to the matter not getting heard, is sought to be projected.

¶25

The fact that interim order was passed in presence of counsel for the appellant and the same was neither questioned immediately nor any attempt was made to get the order vacated, clearly shows that for the reason other than the purported non-hearing of the matter, the present appeal has been filed.

¶26

Be that as it may, we are firmly of the opinion that merely because after an interim order has been granted by learned Single Judge in the presence of the other party and for any reason, the writ petition/stay application cannot be heard in a given period, the same, by itself, cannot be a reason to question the validity of the interim order with inordinate delay seeking condonation of delay on the said ground. We do not find that the reason as projected in the application seeking condonation of 382 days' delay is sufficient for the purpose,.

¶27

Consequently, the application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed. However, looking to the nature of plea raised, the writ petition may be listed before the learned Single Judge on 16.04.2026. It is expected that the matter would be given some priority and would be heard with expedition.

¶28

With the the above direction, the appeal stands disposed of.

¶29

(Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.)

¶30

March 24, 2026 Mukesh Pal

¶31

Digitally signed by :- MUKESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Committee of Management, Jai Prakash Degree College v. State of Up and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Committee of Management, Jai Prakash Degree College v. State of Up and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dinesh Kumar Mishra and Another Vs Union of India and 4 Others

Ram Pal Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Union of India and 3 Others vs Central Administrative Tribunal and Another

Union of India and 3 Others Vs Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad Bench and Another

Hirdesh Bihari Yadav and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ram Pal Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others