SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Mohan Lal [03/05/2024]

Tweet

State of Uttar Pradesh Anr. Vs. Mohan Lal

[Special Leave Petition (C) No. 25032 of 2014]

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. The present petition has been filed impugning order1 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court2. Along with the petition, an application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 1,633 days in filing the present petition.

2. A perusal of the application filed by the petitioner-State seeking condonation of huge delay of 1,633 days in filing the petition shows that to challenge the impugned order dated 13.11.2009 passed by the High Court the file was put up before the Competent Authority, Bareilly, for the first time on 13.04.2011.

On this file the Competent Authority directed to seek legal opinion from the District Government Counsel (Civil)3. After receiving the legal opinion from DGC (Civil), permission was sought from the State Government which was granted and received by the petitioner on 16.09.2011. Thereafter, to explain the delay in filing the petition, the only plea taken is that the matter was entrusted to the counsel. However, later it was found that initially the appeal was not filed.

It is further evident from the application that the case was not properly followed up at any stage. The explanation given for seeking condonation of huge delay of 1,633 days cannot be accepted, when it is not disputed that the petitioner-State appeared before the High Court and was heard before passing of the impugned order, so it was within their knowledge.

2.1 Another fact which may be noticed is that the petitioner-State at page ‘K’ of the Synopsis and List of Dates has referred to Special Leave Petition (Civil)….CC….No.21120 of 2013 titled as ‘State of U.P. others v. Vinod Kumar Tripathi others’ stating therein that in the aforesaid petition identical issue was involved and this Court after condoning the delay had issued notice and the matter is still pending.

The actual cause title of the Special Leave Petition (Civil)….CC….No.21120 of 2013 is ‘State of U.P. and others v. Sanjay Kumar and another’. However, from a bare perusal of the order dated 13.12.2013 passed in the aforesaid petition annexed with this petition as Annexure P-7, it is evident that the aforesaid petition was dismissed on account of delay and on merits. Hence the statement was wrong and misleading.

2.2 Further, the petitioner-State in this petition has mentioned in its ground that in an identical case involving the same question of law, the petitioner-State had preferred S.L.P.(C)…CC…No.21595 of 2013 titled as ‘State of U.P. Anr. vs Vinod Kumar Tripathi Ors. in which this Court had issued notice, and the matter is still pending adjudication before this Court. However, the same has also been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 19.01.2016.

3. From the material placed on record, we do not find sufficient cause is made out for condonation of huge delay of 1,633 days in filing the present petition.

4. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. The Special Leave Petition is also dismissed.

…………………..J. (C.T. Ravikumar)

…………………..J. (Rajesh Bindal)

New Delhi

May 03, 2024.

1 Dated 13.11.2009 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.34974 of 2001

2 High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3 Hereinafter referred to as ‘DGC (Civil)’

 Back

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine


All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

Recent Comments

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2024 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation