Dismissed

The State of Rajasthan v. Samundra Singh

Rajasthan HC18 Jul 2023SAW/349/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur dismissed the appellant-State's application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone a 946-day delay in filing the special appeal, deeming the averments vague. Consequently, the special appeal writ is also dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was dismissed; the special appeal writ was dismissed.

The State of Rajasthan Vs Samundra Singh — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:22185-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 349/2023

¶4

The State of Rajasthan through the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Sri Dungargarh, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Samundra Singh S/o Shri Bahadur Singh, Through President, Rajasthan Casual Labour Union, H. No.35/84, Near Daga School, Bikaner, Rajasthan

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Utkarsh Gurjar for Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT Judgment

¶11

18/07/2023

¶12

The present special appeal writ has been filed by the appellant-State being aggrieved with the order dated 26.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2283/2019 (The State of Rajasthan Vs. Samundra Singh) , whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant-State challenging the award of the Labour Court, Bikaner was dismissed.

¶13

As per the office report, the present appeal has been filed with the delay of 946 days. Office has also pointed out another defect that welfare stamp has not been affixed.

¶14

Along with the present appeal, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has also been filed with a prayer for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal.

¶15

It is averred in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act that the concerned officer contacted the counsel

¶16

[2023:RJ-JD:22185-DB]

¶17

[SAW-349/2023]

¶18

(2 of 2)

¶19

appearing for department to obtain certified copy of the impugned order and thereafter legal opinion and instruction on the same were sought. It is further averred that after providing legal opinion as to appealing against the order of reinstatement, further process was carried out and a decision to file an appeal was taken. It is also averred that thereafter guidance was sought from the department to file special appeal writ in pursuance of the meeting.

¶20

It is noticed that no date of receipt of certified copy of the impugned order has been mentioned. It is also not mentioned that on which date the matter was referred to the authority concerned seeking approval for filing the special appeal writ and on which date the approval was granted.

¶21

The averments made in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are totally vague and are not at all explaining the delay in filing the present appeal much less day to day delay.

¶22

In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant-State has failed to provide any reason for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal.

¶23

Hence, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed.

¶24

Resultantly, this special appeal writ is also dismissed.

¶25

(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J

¶26

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶27

Abhishek Kumar S.No.68

The State of Rajasthan v. Samundra Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Rajasthan v. Samundra Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jeevan Ram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sushila Kanwr Rathor Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S J.K. Cement Works Vs Union of India

Krishan Kumar Vs the Government of India

Shree Cement Limited Vs State and Ors.

Tej Singh Vs Lok Bandhu, District Collector, Barmer