Allahabad High Court
State Of Up And 2 Others vs Satish Chandra Gupta And Another on 1 April, 2025
Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:44908-DB
Court No. - 29
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 919 of 2024
Appellant :- State Of Up And 2 Others
Respondent :- Satish Chandra Gupta And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C.,Rama Nand Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kumar Singh
Connected with
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 3 of 2025
Appellant :- State Of Up And 2 Others
Respondent :- Arun Kumar Gupta And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C.,Rama Nand Pandey,S.C.
Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.
1. Heard Sri Rama Nand Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Arun Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Both appeals are directed against an order passed by learned Single Judge dated 5.9.2011, passed in Writ-A Nos.43575 of 2007 and 49010 of 2007. The claim of respondents petitioners has been allowed and the orders under challenge before the learned Single Judge dated 28.11.2006 and 10.11.2006, respectively, have been quashed and a direction has been issued to release salary to the respondents petitioners from the date they were appointed on the post.
3. The special appeals have been filed in the year 2024 and 2025 only after a contempt has proceeded against the officials and charges have been framed against them.
4. Sri Arun Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent petitioner points out that respondent petitioner Satish Chandra Gupta has already superannuated on 31st March, 2023 and respondent petitioner Arun Kumar Gupta has superannuated on 31.3.2025 and the orders of learned Single Judge have not been complied with in its entirety. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and another Vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through His L.Rs., reported in 2024 (0) Supreme (SC) 296 in which the court has observed that condonation of delay must be based upon materials which justify such course on part of the Court concerned. In paragraph 25 and 26, the Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"25. It hardly matters whether a litigant is a private party or a State or Union of India when it comes to condoning the gross delay of more than 12 years. If the litigant chooses to approach the court long after the lapse of the time prescribed under the relevant provisions of the law, then he cannot turn around and say that no prejudice would be caused to either side by the delay being condoned. This litigation between the parties started sometime in 1981. We are in 2024. Almost 43 years have elapsed. However, till date the respondent has not been able to reap the fruits of his decree. It would be a mockery of justice if we condone the delay of 12 years and 158 days and once again ask the respondent to undergo the rigmarole of the legal proceedings.
26. The length of the delay is a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the appellants, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay."
Other judgments are also relied upon wherein similar view is taken.
5. We have perused the delay condonation application, which is absolutely silent on the reason for delayed filing of appeal. Except to state that contempt proceedings have been initiated and various orders have been passed, there is no other satisfactory explanation put forth by the appellants. Routine filing of the appeals only because contempt is being pressed cannot be a ground. This is particularly so as the delay in filing of the appeal is to the tune of 4821 days.
6. In that view of the matter, delay condonation applications are rejected. Consequently, the appeals fail and are dismissed as time barred.
Order Date :- 1.4.2025
Anil
