State Of Rajasthan vs Krishan Kumar Saini Son Of Shri ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 164 Raj/2

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                 BENCH AT JAIPUR

       D.B. Civil Misc. Application No. 549/2020
                                  And
      D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No. 858/2020
                                    In
         S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21122/2018

1.   State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
     Home, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2.   Inspector General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Jaipur
     (Raj.)
3.   Superintendent Of Police, Jaipur (Raj.)
4.   Superintendent Of Police, Udaipur (Raj.)
                                                             ----Appellants
                                Versus
1.   Krishan Kumar Saini Son Of Shri Ganshyam Saini, Aged
     About 24 Years, Resident Of Pokharwali Dhani, Village
     And Post Nathawala, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur
     (Raj.)
2.   Mukesh Kumar Verma Son Of Shri Om Prakash Verma,
     Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Kiratpura, Post Kansli,
     Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.)
3.   Surya Singh Son Of Shri Girdhari Lal Mahala, Aged About
     24 Years, Resident Of Dhani Bakali Jajod, Khandel,
     District Sikar (Raj.)
4.   Sangeeta Kumari Daughter Of Shri Babu Lal, Resident Of
     Village And Post Punhasa, Tehsil Bhinmal, District Jalore
     (Raj.)
5.   Sanwari Kumari Daughter Of Shri Babu Lal, Resident Of
     Village And Post Punhasa, Tehsil Bhinmal, District Jalore
     (Raj.)
6.   Sumitra Kumari Daughter Of Shri Prem Prakash, Resident
     Of Village And Post Punhasa, Tehsil Bhinmal, District
     Jalore (Raj.)
7.   Sarla Daughter Of Shri Mohan Lal, Resident Of Village And
     Post Punhasa, Tehsil Bhinmal, District Jalore (Raj.)
8.   Jay Prakash Son Of Shri Sagar Mal, Resident Of Dhani
     Gopinathjiki, Post Jalpali, Tehsil Shri Madhopur, District


                 (Downloaded on 11/01/2021 at 09:58:15 PM)
                                             (2 of 3)                  [SAW-858/2020]


        Sikar (Raj.)
9.      Sher Mohammad Son Of Shri Ibrahim Khan, Aged About
        33 Years, Resident Of Khan Market, Teliyan Mohalla,
        Desnok, Bikaner (Raj.)
10.     Shankar Lal Chandel Son Of Shri Jagdish Prasad Khatik,
        Resident Of 278, Gali No. 09, Jhalana Gram Mrce Ke Pass,
        Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
11.     Pradeep Kumar Son Of Shri Jagdish Prasad, Resident Of
        Village Post Maligaon, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
12.     Hajari Lal Son Of Shri Madan Lal, Resident Of Ward No.
        07, Dhana, Post Khetri Nagar, Tehsil Buhana, District
        Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
13.     Anil Kumar Gurjar Son Of Shri Babu Lal Gurjar, Resident
        Of Darhi Mamor, Garhi, Thanagaji, District Alwar (Raj.)
14.     Kapil Kumar Meena Son Of Shri Ramphool Meena,
        Resident Of Dyoda Choud, Post Nayala, Tehsil Bassi,
        District Jaipur (Raj.)
                                                                   ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Harshal Tholia, Advocate through video conferencing on behalf of Dr. Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma, Additional Advocate General

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA Judgment / Order

08/01/2021

Vide this order, application moved by the appellants under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in

filing the appeal would be disposed of.

Learned State counsel has submitted that delay in filing the

appeal was duly explained and was unintentional. Delay in filing

the appeal could not be described as deliberate or intentional.

Respondents had filed writ petition seeking a direction that

their Physical Efficiency Test be conducted as they could not

(3 of 3) [SAW-858/2020]

participate in the test conducted by the appellants being unable to

download the admit card. Writ petition filed by the respondents

was allowed by the learned Single Judge basing reliance on the

decision passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13790/2018 titled as

Rajesh Kumar and Another Versus The State of Rajasthan and

Others decided on 06.10.2018. However, the present appeal is

time barred by 690 days.

We have carefully gone through the contents of the

application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, but

we are of the opinion that the delay in filing the appeal cannot be

said to be unintentional or bona-fide. The impugned order was

passed on 24.10.2018 in the presence of counsel for the parties.

Thereafter, appellants should have been vigilant in filing the

appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. However, the

appeal has been filed after delay of 690 days.

Admittedly, the order passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.13790/2018 has been upheld upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court,

although, it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while

deciding the matter that the decision rendered in the said case

would not be treated as a precedent.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present

case, we are of the considered opinion that the delay in filing the

appeal is not liable to be condoned.

Accordingly, application is dismissed. Consequently, the

appeal is dismissed being time barred.

                                    (CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J                                      (SABINA),J

                                   Mohita /24









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)