Full Judgment Text
2024 INSC 375
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.25032 of 2014
STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER … Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
MOHAN LAL … Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1
1. The present petition has been filed impugning order passed
2
by the Division Bench of the High Court . Along with the petition, an
application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 1,633 days in
filing the present petition.
2. A perusal of the application filed by the petitioner-State
seeking condonation of huge delay of 1,633 days in filing the petition
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
VARSHA MENDIRATTA
Date: 2024.05.03
15:54:10 IST
Reason:
1
Dated 13.11.2009 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.34974 of 2001
2
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Page 1 of 4
shows that to challenge the impugned order dated 13.11.2009 passed by
the High Court the file was put up before the Competent Authority,
Bareilly, for the first time on 13.04.2011. On this file the Competent
Authority directed to seek legal opinion from the District Government
3
Counsel (Civil) . After receiving the legal opinion from DGC (Civil),
permission was sought from the State Government which was granted and
received by the petitioner on 16.09.2011. Thereafter, to explain the delay
in filing the petition, the only plea taken is that the matter was entrusted
to the counsel. However, later it was found that initially the appeal was
not filed. It is further evident from the application that the case was not
properly followed up at any stage. The explanation given for seeking
condonation of huge delay of 1,633 days cannot be accepted, when it is
not disputed that the petitioner-State appeared before the High Court and
was heard before passing of the impugned order, so it was within their
knowledge.
2.1 Another fact which may be noticed is that the petitioner-State
at page ‘K’ of the Synopsis and List of Dates has referred to Special Leave
Petition (Civil)….CC….No.21120 of 2013 titled as ‘State of U.P. & others v.
3
Hereinafter referred to as ‘DGC (Civil)’
Page 2 of 4
Vinod Kumar Tripathi & others’ stating therein that in the aforesaid
petition identical issue was involved and this Court after condoning the
delay had issued notice and the matter is still pending. The actual cause
title of the Special Leave Petition (Civil)….CC….No.21120 of 2013 is ‘State
of U.P. and others v. Sanjay Kumar and another’. However, from a bare
perusal of the order dated 13.12.2013 passed in the aforesaid petition
annexed with this petition as Annexure P-7, it is evident that the aforesaid
petition was dismissed on account of delay and on merits. Hence the
statement was wrong and misleading.
2.2 Further, the petitioner-State in this petition has mentioned in
its ground that in an identical case involving the same question of law, the
petitioner-State had preferred S.L.P.(C)…CC…No.21595 of 2013 titled as
‘State of U.P. & Anr. vs Vinod Kumar Tripathi & Ors. in which this Court
had issued notice, and the matter is still pending adjudication before this
Court. However, the same has also been dismissed by this Court vide
order dated 19.01.2016.
3. From the material placed on record, we do not find sufficient
cause is made out for condonation of huge delay of 1,633 days in filing the
present petition.
Page 3 of 4
4. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay is
dismissed. The Special Leave Petition is also dismissed.
……………….……………..J.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
……………….……………..J.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
New Delhi
May 03, 2024.
Page 4 of 4