Mukhtiyar Ahmed vs Raj. State Industrial And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 892 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 251/2020

Mukhtiyar Ahmed S/o Fazluddin, Aged About 40 Years, 331/b, Kidwai Nagar, Gharwala Jaw Mandia Road, Pali (Raj.)

----Appellant Versus

1. Raj. State Industrial And Investment Cor. Ltd., Through The Chairman And Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

2. The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial And Investment Corporation Ltd., I.t.i. Road, Pali.

3. The Collector-Cum-Chairman, Allotment Committee, Punayata Industrial Area, Pali.

4. The District Industrial Centre, Pali, Through General Manager-Cum-Member Secretary.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. H.K. Ballani.

Mr. V.D. Vaishnav.

For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

Order

23/01/2023

The office has reported that the appeal is barred by 259

days.

An application has been filed by the appellant/applicant

under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay

in filing the appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant made

submissions that as the judgment impugned has been passed by

the learned Single Judge in ignorance of material available on

(2 of 2) [SAW-251/2020]

record and that the delay in filing the appeal is bona-fide, the

delay deserves to be condoned.

We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the

appellant/applicant.

A perusal of the application reveals that applicant/appellant

has simply indicated that the judgment was delivered on

25.03.2019 and sometime lapsed in taking the decision for

challenging the judgment dated 25.03.2019 and after getting final

instructions from the appellant/applicant, the appeal has been

drafted and that there is somewhat delay in filing the appeal.

The reasons sought to be indicated for delay of 259 days are

absolutely baseless and cannot form the basis for seeking

condonation of delay, inasmuch as, no satisfactory reason has

been indicated, except for that the appellant/applicant has taken

time in deciding to file the appeal, which is not a valid ground for

seeking condonation of delay of 259 days.

The application is bereft of any substance. The same is,

therefore, dismissed.

Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J (ARUN BHANSALI),J 19-pradeep/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)