Allahabad High Court
Raj Kumar Sonkar vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 1 August, 2024
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:123784-DB
Court No. - 29
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 363 of 2024
Appellant :- Raj Kumar Sonkar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- In Person
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Sonkar, the appellant-petitioner in person and Sri Mohan Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. As per report of Stamp Reporter, the instant Special Appeal is preferred with inordinate delay of 1560 days.
3. Present intra-court appeal is preferred questioning the validity of judgment and order dated 17-12-2019 passed in Writ-A No. 19398 of 2019 (Raj Kumar Sonkar Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others), by which learned Single Judge of this Court has proceeded to dismiss the writ petition. For ready reference the order dated 17-12-2019 is extracted as under:-
"....Heard Sri Raj Kumar Sonkar, the petitioner in person and Sri Vishal Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of all the respondents.
In compliance with the order dated 06.12.2019, Sri Vishal Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has produced written instructions dated 3rd December, 2019 wherein it is indicated that the selection exercise/interview, where the petitioner appeared for the post of Peon/Chowkidar held on 07.02.2011, has been canceled on 11th June, 2019 in view of a change in the recruitment policy. Upon being asked by the Court that what took the respondents so long from the year 2011 to the year 2019 to take the recruitment process commenced in the year 2011 to its logical conclusion, it is pointed out that a PIL No. 19831 of 2011 Saroj Kumar vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary and others was filed wherein this Court passed an interim order restraining the process of recruitment vide order dated 06.04.2011. The said petition was dismissed on 23.03.2017. It is this period of operation of the stay order between 06.04.2011 and 23.03.2017 that accounts for the delay in the selections held on 17.02.2011 being not finalized earlier. Now, of course the policy has been changed and vide order dated 11.06.2019, the entire recruitment process has been cancelled. As such, no case for grant of relief is made out.
The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs."
3. It also appears from the record that a Review Application No.44 of 2024 (Raj Kumar Sonkar Vs. State of U.P. and others) along with the delay condoantion application was preferred in the year 2024 to review the order dated 07-12-2019, which was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 15-03-2024. For ready reference, the order dated 15-03-2024 is extracted as under:-
"...1. Heard Mr. Ajay Shankar, learned Counsel for the applicant-petitioner in support of the application for review of my order dated 07.12.2019 passed in Writ - A No. 19398 of 2019,.
2. Learned Counsel has argued that the applicant-petitioner cannot be blamed for the stay order, that was passed in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 19831 of 2011, tilted as 'Saroj Kumar v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary and others', which, later on, came to be dismissed as not maintainable.
3. The fact that the interim order was passed, which led to delay in finalization of the recruitment process and during this period, a change in the recruitment policy came about would not, by itself, entitle the petitioner to relief. These are two distinct and different matters. One is the filing of the P.I.L., wherein, an interim order was passed, and later on, the P.I.L. was dismissed; and the other is change in recruitment policy on account of lapse of time. These issues have already been considered, and in the garb of hearing this review application, the Court cannot reopen the entire controversy as if it were hearing the matter for the first time and enter a different opinion. There is no such error apparent or other sufficient cause pointed out on behalf of the applicant, which may call for a review of our order dated 17.12.2019.
4. This review application, accordingly, stands rejected."
5. We place on record our appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. Ajay Shankar, Advocate, who has appeared in the matter instructed by the High Court Legal Services Authority.
4. Alongwith Special Appeal, the Delay Condonation Application is also appended. The affidavit sworn by the appellant-petitioner himself. To justify the inordinate delay in approaching, following reasons were assigned in the affidavit filed alongwith Delay Condonation Application, which are extracted as under:-
"1. That the deponent above named is the sole petitioner/applicant/appellant in the aforesaid special appeal and doing pairvi on behalf of him, as such, he is fully acquainted with the facts of the case deposed to below.
2. That the petitioner being very poor who living hand to mouth and also less educated person who does not know about the technicality of law, and also very poor who could not manage to file same within time.
2. That since the applicant/appellant, who is poor, unemployed and in search of job wondering here and there and his family condition is very pathetic and members are suffering from old age ailments and no financial support thereof, as such the delay in filing the special appeal is liable to be condone in the interest of justice.
3. That the applicant/appellant is very poor, who also did not know the technicality of law, and the delay caused in filing the special appeal is not intentionally and deliberately, it happened on account of reasoned above, therefore, applicant/appellant could not file the same in time, which is liable to be condone, in the interest of justice.
4.That in view of the facts and circumstances disclosed in the preceding paragraphs of the affidavit, it just and expedient in the interest of justice and the delay caused in filing the special appeal is not intentionally and deliberately in happen on account of due to reasoned given above, which is liable to be condone and application deemed to be filed in time, in the interest of justice."
6. We have proceeded to examine the record and perused the aforementioned reasons, which are assigned alongwith Delay Condonation Application. We do not find any plausible and acceptable explanation under which the inordinate delay of 1560 days may be condoned.
7. In the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s National Fertilizers Ltd., ITA 401/2023 & CM No. 37496/2023, dated 23.08.2023, the Delhi High Court warned the Income Tax Department on delay in filing an appeal under section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and directed them to avoid snail pace work style even with a click of the mouse age. The Court viewed that the applicant failed to explain sufficient cause for a delay of 498 days in filing the appeal and dismissed the condonation application.
8. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh And Others Vs. Bherulal reported in (2020)10 SCC 654, the Apex Court held that unavailability of documents and the process of arranging the documents and bureaucratic process works cannot be a ground to condone the delay in filing of an appeal by the State. The delay of 663 days was not condoned and the SLP was dismissed with a cost of Rs. 25,000/-.
9. In the case of S.S. Balu Vs. State of Kerela, the Apex Court has observed that "it is also well-settled principle of law that 'delay defeats equity'....." It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner or appellant approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and latches.
10. Considering the above catena of judgement, we do not find any good reason to accept the delay condonation application as the explanation for delay in filing the appeal is unreasonable. Accordingly, the same stands rejected and consequently the appeal also fails and the same stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.8.2024
pks
