Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... vs Surendra Bahadur Singh And Others on 13 October, 2025
Author: Rajan Roy
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:63461-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 15 of 2024
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Surendra Bahadur Singh And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
C.S.C.
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Girish Chandra Verma
Court No. - 1
HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J.
(C.M. Application No.1 of 2024)
1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Heard.
3. This is an appeal by the State challenging the judgment and order dated 30.08.2022 passed in Writ-C No.1003391 of 2015 albeit one which has been filed with a delay of 469 days. The limitation prescribed for filing special appeal is 30 days.
4. The judgment in question was passed on 30.08.2022 with a clear stipulation that Standing Counsel shall communicate a copy of the same to respondent no.4 i.e. Finance Controller, Directorate of Education (Secondary Education), U.P., Allahabad for its compliance within the time granted which was four months. The affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay is absolutely silent as to when Standing Counsel informed the said Finance Controller about the judgment for compliance. It is also not mentioned that Standing Counsel did not inform respondent no.4 about the said judgment. Without disclosing these facts, in para 5 it has been stated that copy of the judgment was received along with representation dated 29.12.2022. Copy of representation dated 29.12.2022 has not been annexed by the State. There is no explanation for the delay of almost four months from 30.08.2022 to 29.12.2022.
5. On a further reading of the affidavit in support of the application seeking condonation of delay, we find that for the first time on 09.01.2023, a report was sought by the State Government from Director of Education in this regard, in pursuance to which, the Director (Education) sought a report vide letter dated 22.01.2023 and vide letter dated 07.02.2023, records/ reports was sought from management of the school by D.I.O.S., Pratapgarh which were ultimately made available by the Management of the School vide letter dated 14.03.2022 received in the office of D.I.O.S., Pratapgarh on 23.03.2023. On 28.03.2023, the records were sent to Directorate of Secondary Education by D.I.O.S, Pratapgarh. Thereafter, in para 11 of the affidavit, it has been stated that vide letter dated 17.04.2023 and 08.05.2023, an 'ambiguous' report was again sought by the Directorate from D.I.O.S., Pratapgarh which was provided to the Directorate vide letter dated 29.05.2023. Thus, more than one and a half months was consumed in this regard. Para 12 of the affidavit says that from 01.05.2023 to 30.06.2023, the High Court was closed due to summer vacations, whereas, anybody who practices in this Court is well aware that a belated appeal can very well be filed even during vacations and Registry is open for the said purposes. Most important, summer vacations in the Allahabad High Court never commence from 01.05.2023. On being confronted, Sri Nishant Shukla, learned Addl. C.S.C. submitted that the date 01.05.2023 appears to be typographical error. It would be 01.06.2023. The High Court normally opens on 1st of July after summer vacations. Such an explanation being offered in the affidavit demonstrates a clumsy attempt to explain the delay rather it is quite unfortunate that such an explanation should be put forth before the High Court. Nevertheless, we proceed to consider the facts further. Para 13 of the affidavit speaks of a letter dated 20.07.2023 by which a proposal was sought by the State Government from Director (Education) for filing special appeal. There is no explanation for the period till 19.07.2023 as to why the proposal for filing special appeal had not been sent. Thus, apparently, a little less than two months from the date of receipt of reports from D.I.O.S, Pratapgarh (on 29.05.2023) by the Directorate were spent without any tangible action in this regard which only goes to show the unjustifiable lethargy and inertia on the part of the concerned officials of the State.
6. On 22.07.2023, the D.I.O.S, Pratapgarh sent the proposal for filing special appeal. Para 15 of the affidavit says that after discussion, legal opinion was sought from Chief Standing Counsel in this regard which was received in the Directorate on 03.08.2023. In pursuance to letter of the State Government dated 27.09.2023, legal opinion of C.S.C. was sought once again by Director, Secondary Education vide his letter dated 29.09.2023 regarding filing of an appeal which was provided by the Chief Standing Counsel on 17.11.2023. It is not disclosed as to why, after receipt of legal opinion on 03.08.2023, the same was sought again. None of these documents have been appended with the affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay. Whosoever has sworn the affidavit wants the High Court to believe everything which has been stated on affidavit without annexing proof in support thereof that too in a case where delay is of 469 days. We do not know what was stated in these letters and documents referred in the affidavit but the fact remains that State authorities proceeded leisurely. Even the C.S.C. gave his opinion almost after one and a half months. Even after receipt of legal opinion and grant of permission by the Law Department to file an appeal on 07.12.2023, the appeal was ultimately filed on 10.01.2024. In the interregnum, the file was allotted to Addl. C.S.C. for preparing the appeal.
7. In our opinion, the explanation offered by the State for the delay does not appear to be satisfactory nor can it be said to be a genuine and bonafide explanation. It is more an attempt to give excuses rather than an explanation. For 469 days, file kept travelling from one office to another without any urgency or promptness on the part of the State authorities. None of the correspondences referred in the affidavit have been annexed. In fact, for the period of four months after 30.08.2022, no steps were taken for filing the appeal nor any explanation has been offered in this regard. The State and its authorities acted in a negligent and apathetic manner. Reference may be made in this regard to a decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court dated 12.09.2025 rendered in Civil Appeal No.11794 of 2025 'Shivamma (Dead) By LRS vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors', on which we rely in support of our opinion as above on the question of delay and its condonation.
8. Sri G.C. Verma, learned counsel for the respondents apart from opposing the application for condonation of delay has also informed us that that this was the third round of litigation. There was sufficient material before the writ court indicating towards functioning of the institution and also appointment of teachers and their functioning based on which the impugned judgment has been passed. We express no opinion on the merits of the issue.
9. In view of the above, we are not inclined to extend the limitation and condone the delay in filing the appeal. The application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the special appeal also stands dismissed.
(Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)
October 13, 2025
Shanu/-
