Govind Singh Fartiyal vs State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. U.P. ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 11815 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Govind Singh Fartiyal vs State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. U.P. ... on 28 October, 2025

Author: Rajan Roy

Bench: Rajan Roy

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:66996-DB
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 506 of 2023   
 
   Govind Singh Fartiyal    
 
  .....Appellant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. U.P. Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Appellant(s)   
 
:   
 
Mahesh Kr. Sharma, Desh Raj Singh Yadav, Rajesh Kumar Verma   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 1
 
   
 
 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.  

HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J.

C.M.A. No.11 of 2023 (Application for Condonation of Delay)

1. Heard Shri Desh Raj Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The judgment impugned was passed on 04.07.2016 in a bunch of writ petitions, the leading petition being Writ Petition No.7134 (S/S) of 2006. The appeal has been filed on 21.07.2023. There is delay of 1826 days as on 20.07.2023. The period of limitation having expired prior to onset of Covid-19 pandemic on 15.03.2020, the benefit of orders passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.03 of 2020 and consequential orders passed by this Court in various writ petitions is not available to the appellant.

3. We have gone through the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay. The only explanation offered in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay is that similarly situated persons who were petitioners before the writ court challenged the impugned judgment dated 04.07.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.7134 (S/S) of 2006 and their appeal was allowed vide judgment dated 04.04.2017. However, we are of the opinion that this by itself does not explain the delay in filing this appeal nor does it provide sufficient cause for condoning the same or extending the limitation. The judgment impugned was passed on 04.07.2016 in Writ Petition No.7134 (S/S) of 2006 and connected petitions wherein the appellant was also petitioner that is petitioner no.7, therefore, he was aware of the judgment dated 04.07.2016, but chose not to challenge the same. Others who were diligent enough challenged the same in 2016 itself and their appeal bearing Special Appeal Defective No.369 of 2016, arising out of Writ Petition No.7134(S/S) of 2006 was allowed. The said judgment dated 04.04.2017 provides reliefs to the appellants therein and not the appellant before us. Obviously, the judgment has been set aside qua the said appellants-petitioners and not the appellant-petitioner before us.

4. The delay is not only inordinate but it has not been satisfactorily explained, therefore, we are not inclined to condone the delay in view of the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Shivamma (dead) by LRS Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and Ors. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 1969.

5. The application for condonation of delay is accordingly rejected, consequently the appeal is also dismissed.

6. However, our order shall not come in the way of the State Government if, it, on its own, wants to extend the benefit of the aforesaid judgment passed in the appeal preferred by other persons as decided on 04.04.2017.

(Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)

October 28, 2025

Anand/-