Dismissed

Rakesh Bharatbhai Kalotra v. District Development Officer

Gujarat HC11 Sept 2026CA/3872/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Gujarat dismissed an application for condonation of a 1356-day delay in filing a Letters Patent Appeal against a single judge's order dismissing a writ petition. The applicant, son of a deceased daily wage employee, claimed lack of legal awareness, financial hardship, and family duties as reasons for the delay. The court found the explanation vague and insufficient, noting the applicant had previously pursued the writ petition in 2019 and was employed as a driver, undermining claims of ignorance and indigence. The appeal was de-registered.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay dismissed; Rule discharged; Letters Patent Appeal No. 23439/2026 de-registered.

Rakesh Bharatbhai Kalotra Vs District Development… — Service and Employment | Gujarat HC (2026)

¶1

C/CA/3872/2026 (GJHC240566382026) ORDER DATED: 11/09/2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 3872 of 2026

¶4

In F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL/23439/2026 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/9259/2019

¶5

========================================================== RAKESH BHARATBHAI KALOTRA Versus DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER & ANR.

¶6

==========================================================

¶7

Appearance:

¶8

MR.DEVENDRA H PANDYA(6462) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR ADITYA DAVDA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶9

==========================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI

¶11

Date : 11/09/2026

¶12

ORAL ORDER

¶13

(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN)

¶14

By this application, the applicant has prayed to condone the delay of 1356 days caused in preferring the captioned appeal, that is filed against the judgment dated 11.10.2022 of the learned single Judge whereby, the Special Civil Application no.9259 of 2019 preferred by the applicant has been dismissed.

¶15

Issue Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.Bhavik Barot, learned Advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent no. 1 and Mr.Aditya Davda, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent no. 2.

¶16

Page 1 of 6

¶17

C/CA/3872/2026 (GJHC240566382026) ORDER DATED: 11/09/2026

¶18

Mr.Devendra Pandya, learned Advocate has invited the attention of this Court to paragraphs 4 and 5 of the application. It is submitted that the applicant who has no legal background, was advised that no further effective remedy would survive. It is submitted that the applicant has modest financial background and hence, the financial constraints prevented him from immediately consulting another lawyer seeking independent legal opinion. In the absence of any independent legal opinion, the applicant could not take immediate steps for filing the appeal. Besides, the applicant also has family responsibilities and considering the nature of job the applicant could not be take steps promptly.

¶19

Mr. Bhavik Barot, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr.HS Munshaw, learned Advocate for respondent no. 1 has opposed the application by stating that the appeal is filed with a huge delay of 1356 days. The averments made in paragraphs 4 and 5, by no stretch of imagination can be construed as sufficient explanation offered for condoning the delay of almost close to four years. Mere stating that the applicant has no legal background or that he believed the advice previously given by the learned Advocate and subsequent sought an independent opinion, can be no grounds for condoning the delay. It is submitted that the applicant is the son of the deceased employee who was working on a daily wage basis and passed away in the year 1999 and had preferred a writ petition almost after a period of twenty years that came to be dismissed by the learned single Judge on the ground that the benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 cannot be made available to him

¶20

Page 2 of 6

¶21

C/CA/3872/2026 (GJHC240566382026) ORDER DATED: 11/09/2026

¶22

inasmuch as, the petition under Article 226 cannot be turned into a remedy to invoke pious obligation of the son to seek a remedy for his father.

¶23

Mr.Aditya Davda, learned Assistant Government Pleader has joined the submissions made by Mr.Bhavik Barot, learned Advocate appearing for respondent no. 1. It is submitted that there is not a semblance of explanation offered in the application. Paragraphs 4 and 5 are only for the purpose of coming out of the delay of 1356 days that has occurred in preferring the captioned appeal. Even on merits, the applicant has no case he being the son of daily wage employee who has passed away in the year 1999 whereas petition was filed after twenty years seeking the benefits which the father would have been entitled and eligible for. It is therefore urged that the explanation does not deserve to be accepted and the application, may be dismissed.

¶24

Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties.

¶25

The application is filed with a delay of 1356 days caused in preferring the captioned appeal. The explanation offered can be culled out from paragraphs 4 to 7 of the application seeking condonation of delay, that read thus:

¶26

“4. The delay is bona fide and neither intentional nor deliberate. Immediately after the judgment, the Applicant, being a layman with no legal background, relied upon the legal advice then available and bona fide believed that no further effective remedy survived.

¶27

Page 3 of 6

¶28

C/CA/3872/2026 (GJHC240566382026) ORDER DATED: 11/09/2026

¶29

The Applicant belongs to a modest financial background. Severe financial constraints prevented him from immediately consulting another advocate or obtaining an independent legal opinion. The Applicant had to prioritize family responsibilities and was not in a position to incur further litigation expenses.

¶30

Because of the combined effect of financial hardship and absence of proper legal advice, the Applicant could not take immediate steps for filing the appeal. There was never any intention to abandon the lawful claim arising from the service benefits earned by the deceased employee.

¶31

Subsequently, on obtaining an independent legal opinion from the present advocate, the Applicant was advised that the judgment was amenable to an intra-court appeal and that the writ petition had been dismissed solely on delay without examination of the merits. Immediately thereafter the Applicant arranged finances, collected documents and instructed the present advocate to file the appeal. There has been no avoidable delay thereafter.”

¶32

The explanation offered is that the applicant is having no legal background and previously the applicant was advised that there is no legal remedy available against the judgment of the learned single Judge. Financial constraints and family responsibilities are the factors that have been offered as explanation by the applicant. Under the circumstances, the applicant could not take a proper advice and the steps and hence, the delay.

¶33

Perceptibly, the applicant, is the son of the deceased daily wage employee who passed away in the year 1999. The applicant had preferred the writ petition, which came to be dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 11.10.2022 against which, the applicant has preferred the captioned appeal with delay of 1356 days. It is by now well settled that everyday's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic

¶34

Page 4 of 6

¶35

C/CA/3872/2026 (GJHC240566382026) ORDER DATED: 11/09/2026

¶36

approach should be made. The doctrine, has been expected to apply the rationale common sense in a pragmatic manner. It is also well settled that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for, the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.

¶37

Keeping the settled legal position in the forefront, the application and explanation offered by the applicant need to be examined. Also, that the explanation is sufficient to condone the delay. In the case on hand, the applicant is a son who is claiming the benefits on behalf of his father, who passed away in the year 1999. The writ petition being Special Civil Application no.9259 of 2019 was filed and dismissed on 11.10.2022. The applicant being aggrieved has preferred the captioned appeal with a delay of close to four years. The explanation offered in paragraphs 4 to 7, cannot be said to be plausible and acceptable explanation. It is true that everyday’s delay is not required to be explained; however, there has to be some semblance of explanation offered. Financial constraint; no knowledge of law, can be said to be factors.. However, the applicant had approached this Court in the year 2019 and pursued the remedy and now, to suggest that he was not aware about the legal nuances, cannot be accepted. So far as financial constraint is concerned, when this Court confronted the learned Advocate it was informed that the applicant is doing a job of driving and hence, the explanation of financial constraint, also does not appeal to this Court. The explanation in the opinion of this Court, is vague

¶38

Page 5 of 6

¶39

C/CA/3872/2026 (GJHC240566382026) ORDER DATED: 11/09/2026

¶40

and only to come out of the huge delay.

¶41

In the absence of any semblance of explanation offered, the delay caused in preferring the captioned appeal, that is close to four years, does not deserve to be condoned and consequently, the application stands dismissed.

¶42

Rule is discharged. Registry is directed to de-register F/Letters Patent Appeal No. 23439 of 2026 in R/Special Civil Application No. 9259 of 2019 .

¶43

(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J)

¶44

(UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI, J)

¶45

SINDHU NAIR

¶46

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges. Digitally signed by: SINDHU UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR(HC01395), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 17/09/2026 17:45:58

¶47

Page 6 of 6

Rakesh Bharatbhai Kalotra v. District Development Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Bharatbhai Kalotra v. District Development Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases