Prashidh Nath Pandey vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 7150 ALL

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 7150 ALL
Judgement Date : 6 July, 2021

Allahabad High Court

Prashidh Nath Pandey vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 6 July, 2021

Bench: Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Acting Chief Justice, Piyush Agrawal




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 29
 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 425 of 2021
 
Appellant :- Prashidh Nath Pandey
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Rajesh Kumar Tripathi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,Acting Chief Justice
 
Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.

Heard on the application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act so as the appeal.

There is delay of 3148 days in filing the appeal. The affidavit appended to the application for condonation of delay does not justify or give reasons to accept the prayer. The delay is not of a month or two rather of more than 9 years. It cannot be condoned casually, more so when no justifiable reason has been given. The writ petition was not dismissed for non prosecution rather after hearing the counsel for the petitioner. Thus we find no justification to accept the application for condonation of delay.

In the appeal also, we do not find any error in the judgment of the learned single Judge. The petitioner is one who said to have taken appointment without approval of the respondent-department and even the approval order dated 22nd March, 1999 was found to be forged. The claim of the petitioner is thus based on forged document and said to have been used in connivance with the Manager of the Institution. The petitioner is none else but son in law of the Manager of the Institution.

In the light of the aforesaid the learned single Judge did not find any ground to accept the writ petition rather the petitioner could not have been appointed without the approval of the District Inspector of Schools in view of the provisions applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is for that reason only the petitioner in connivance with his father in law, managed to create approval letter of the District Inspector of Schools.

Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, we do not find that the prayer made in the writ petition could have been granted by the learned single Judge. We do not find any error in the judgement.

Thus the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act so as the appeal are dismissed.

Order Date :- 6.7.2021/samz