Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/293/2023 on 23 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 293 OF 2023
23RD AUGUST, 2023
BETWEEN:
Dhajbeer Singh Rawat .....Appellant.
And
State of Uttarakhand & others ....Respondents.
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. Reituparna Joshi, learned
counsel.
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Mr. J.C. Pande, learned Standing
Counsel and Ms. Puja Banga,
learned Brief Holder.
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned
counsel.
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)
The present special appeal is directed against the
judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in Writ
Petition (S/S) No.3706 of 2018, dated 11.07.2022.
2. There is a delay of 361 days in filing the present
special appeal.
3. The appellant has filed an application to seek
condonation of the said delay. The reason for the said delay is
stated to be that the appellant contacted his counsel after
winter vacations in the middle of February, 2023, and then he
was informed that his writ petition has been dismissed on
11.07.2022 by the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, he
sought advice for further action to challenge the judgment of
the learned Single Judge. He further states that due to
financial constraints, he could not file the special appeal. He
tried to make arrangement of the relevant documents in
April, 2023, but could not file the special appeal due to family
condition and problems. Thereafter, he contacted his new
counsel in the month of July, 2023, and consequently, this
special appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
4. The appeal is dated 06.08.2023. We are not
satisfied with the explanation provided by the appellant to
seek condonation of substantial delay of 361 days. It appears
that the appellant was negligent in following up the matter
with his counsel, and did not follow up with his earlier counsel
for nearly nine months. The appeal is filed through another
counsel, and the affidavit of the earlier counsel has not been
filed in support of the averments in the application. Even after
the appellant learnt of the impugned judgment, he did not file
the appeal for three months. Delay becomes even more
significant when one examines the controversy raised by the
appellant. The appellant claimed employment under
Rehabilitation and Reconstruction for Hydro Project Policy,
2013, and the lands in question were acquired by the State
between 1989 and 2015. The appellant is already in his
thirties.
5. In view of the aforesaid, with the passage of time,
the justification for grant of relief has also extinguished.
6. We are, therefore, not inclined to condone the
delay. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
7. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.)
(RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.)
Dated: 23rd August, 2023
NISHANT
