Madhya Pradesh High Court
Priti Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 August, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1 WA-1665-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 1 st OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 1665 of 2025
PRITI SONI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri H.Y. Mehta - Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, Chief Justice
1. The appellant impugns order dated 14.02.2019, whereby the petition
filed by the appellant challenging rejection of candidature of the Lecturer
(Hearing Disable), has been dismissed.
2. The present appeal has been filed on 16.06.2025 with the delay of over
nearly 2100 days. The only explanation in the application seeking
condonation of delay is that the appellant had an issue on her neck and
needed an operation, she was operated on 08.10.2020. Thereafter. it is
contended that the father of the appellant suffered from throat cancer in the
year 2010 and appellant had to take him for treatment from Indore to Ujjain
repeatedly.
2 WA-1665-2025
3. Under these circumstances, it is contended that the delay occurred in
filing the subject appeal. The medical documents annexed with the
application show that the appellant was admitted in hospital for surgery on
08.10.2020 and was discharged on 10/10/2020. The discharge certificate
records that appellant was suffered from pain and swelling over neck for one
month which ex-facie shows that appellant was diagnosed with the problem
sometime in September, 2022. Further, the medical documents of father of
the appellant annexed with the application are of the year 2021 and subject
appeal has been filed on 16.06.2025 challenging the order dated 14.02.2019.
The limitation for filing an appeal is 90 days. Limitation got over in May,
2019, thereafter, no appeal was preferred for over six years.
4. We are of the view that there is no sufficient explanation of delay was
given in filing the appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the in similar
circumstances another petition of another individual was dismissed in
respect of the same advertisement, which was impugned by the said
individual and ultimately the individual succeeded upto the Supreme Court
and as such, the case the appellant is meritorious. We are unable to accept the
contention of the appellant that here case should be considered on merits.
6. Reliance is placed by learned counsel for the Appellant on the decisions
of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Anantnag
and Others Vs. Mrs. Katiji and Others reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 , Inder
Singh Vs. State of M.P. reported in MANU/SC/0376/2025 and Moolchandra
Vs. Union of India and another reported in (2025) 1 SCC 625 to contend that
3 WA-1665-2025
there should be a liberal justice oriented approach and not the length of delay
but cause for delay is relevant for considering the application for
condonation of delay.
7. We note that in all the cases relied upon, Supreme Court has held that if
there is sufficient cause explained, then length of delay becomes irrelevant
and it is the merit of the case, which should be considered.
8. As noticed above, in the present case, appellant has not given any
explanation for the delay of over six years in approaching the Court. Medical
documents of the appellant show that appellant was suffering from neck
ailment and was admitted in hospital for only 3 days for surgery. The
medical documents records that the appellant was suffering from pain and
swelling for over one month. Clearly, the limitation period for filing the
appeal expired long before appellant suffered from the said ailment. Further,
the medical documents of father of the appellant pertains to the year 2021
only, there is no explanation given by the appellant for the period between
14.02.2019 till September, 2020 and after 2021 till the filing of the appeal on
16.06.2025.
9. We are of the view that the appellant has not sufficiently explained the
delay and as such above judgments relied upon by the appellant do not come
to the aid of the appellant. Furthermore, the contention that in similar
circumstances, another candidate has succeeded upto the Supreme Court also
does not further the case of the appellant for the reasons that the said
candidate was vigilant about her rights and appellant made time elapse and
did not pursue her remedy of an appeal.
4 WA-1665-2025
10. Therefore, we are of the view that the appellant has not sufficiently
explained the delay, consequently the application for condonation of delay
is dismissed.
11. Since the application seeking condonation of delay has been dismissed,
the appeal is also dismissed on the ground of being barred by limitation.
(SANJEEV SACHDEVA) (SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Vindesh
