Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Meera Kumawat (2025:Rj-Jd:39306-Db) on 4 September, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:39306-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 663/2025
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
(Panchayati Raj), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development And
Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur
3. District Programme Coordinator And District Collector,
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Bhinder, District
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
Meera Kumawat D/o Shri Sharwan Lal Kumawat, Aged About 33
Years, Resident Of Tara Nagar, Khirni Phatak, Jhotwara, District
Jaipur. Presently Posted On The Post Of Ldc, Gram Panchayat
Kharoda, Panchayat Samiti Bhinder, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. I.R. Choudhary, AAG with
Mr. Pawan Bharti.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Singh.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA
Order
04/09/2025
I.A. No.01/2025:-
1. In this application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
the appellants have stated thus:-
"2. That it is submitted that the present appeal has been
filed after an expiry of the period of limitation as prescribed
(Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 04:47:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39306-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-663/2025]
under the law and the time period was lapsed due to some
administrative reasons.
3. That sometime lapsed in obtaining the certified copy
petition and after obtaining the certified copy of the
judgment dated 18.07.2022 the copy was sent to
department for further deliberations.
4. Thereafter, a meeting of pre-litigation committee was
held and a decision was taken to file an appeal in the
instant case on ___.___.202__.
5. Thereafter, officer in-charge was appointed to file an
appeal in the matter on __.__.202__.
6. That the officer in-charge produced the relevant record
before the counsels for filing of appeal. However, certain
additional documents were called for by the counsels for
appellants and some time has been lapsed in collating and
collecting the relevant documents.
7. That sometime has been lapsed in preparing the special
appeal and the same has been filed after the due approval
without any lapse of time. It may be further pointed out
that there are several such identical controversies which
have been decided in ignorance of material facts and law
and for proper adjudication of instant controversy, the
instant appeal deserves condonation of delay.
8. That in view of the facts stated above and impending
merits of the matter, it is clear that all the required
bonafide efforts have been made to file the present appeal
at the earliest. However, the appeal could not be within
stipulated time period due to some administrative reasons.
The delay so caused in filing the present appeal is bonafide
and the same is required to be condoned in the interest of
justice. It is submitted that the present special appeal
involves a substantial question of law as the same require
adjudication on merits. In this view of the matter, it is in
the interest of justice to condone the delay in filing the
present appeal; the present appeal may also be heard and
disposed of on merits.
9. That in these circumstances, it is submitted that the
delay caused in the present case is bonafide and the same
should be condone in securing the ends of justice."
2. On a glance at the aforesaid statements made by the
appellants seeking condonation of delay of 877 days, we observed
that such huge delay cannot be said to have occurred
inadvertently. Not only the date on which an application for
obtaining certified copy of the judgment dated 18.07.2022 was
made is not disclosed, this is also not disclosed when the certified
copy was obtained and legal opinion as stated in paragraph no.3
was obtained.
(Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 04:47:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39306-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-663/2025]
3. Notwithstanding the fact that the application under section 5
of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not provide any satisfactory
reason for condoning the delay of 877 days, we have glanced
through the order passed by the writ Court and found that the writ
Court's order is based on the decision in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.12109 of 2018 titled "Nand kishore Sharma & Ors. v. State of
Rajasthan & Ors.". The writ Court observed that the Zila Parishad
at Sriganganagar and Zila Parishad at Dungarpur have passed
orders granting notional benefits to the other similarly situated
candidates.
4. Having regard to these facts, we are of the opinion that the
present Special Appeal (Writ) prima-facie seems to have no merit.
5. In view of the aforesaid considerations, we do not find any
reason to condone the delay of 877 days and, accordingly, I.A.
No.01 of 2025 is dismissed.
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 663 of 2025:-
Consequent upon dismissal of the application
I.A No.01/2025, the present D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 663 of
2025 is dismissed.
(SANDEEP TANEJA),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
10-Zeeshan
(Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 04:47:53 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
