1. Petition challenging a High Court order — Application for condonation of significant delay in filing. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 416
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.
State Of U.P. & Another – Appellant
Versus
Mohan Lal – Respondent
Special Leave Petition (C) No.25032 of 2014
Decided on : 03-05-2024
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Huge delay of 1,633 days in filing Special Leave Petition cannot be condoned.
Huge delay of 1,633 days in filing Special Leave Petition cannot be condoned.
Subject
Civil Law - Condonation of Delay
Headnote
Constitution of India – Article 136 – Special Leave Petition – Delay of 1,633 days in filing petition – Case was not properly followed up at any stage – Explanation given for seeking condonation of huge delay of 1,633 days cannot be accepted, when it is not disputed that petitioner-State appeared before High Court and was heard before passing of impugned order, so it was within their knowledge – From material placed on record, no sufficient cause is made out for condonation of huge delay of 1,633 days in filing present petition – Special Leave Petition dismissed. (Paras 2, 3 and 4)
Facts of the case:
Present petition has been filed impugning order [Dated 13.11.2009 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.34974 of 2001] passed by Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. Along with petition, an application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 1,633 days in filing present petition.
Findings of Court:
Application for condonation of delay is dismissed. The Special Leave Petition is also dismissed.
Result : SLPs dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. K. Parameshwar, A.A.G. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Ashiwan Mishra, Adv. Ms. Vaidruti Mishra, Adv. Ms. Aditi Mishra, Adv. Ms. Kanti, Adv. Ms. Raji Gururaj, Adv. Mr. Chinmay kalgaonkar, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv. Mr. T. N. Singh, AOR Mr. Vikas Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Rajshree Singh, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. K. Parameshwar, A.A.G. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Ashiwan Mishra, Adv. Ms. Vaidruti Mishra, Adv. Ms. Aditi Mishra, Adv. Ms. Kanti, Adv. Ms. Raji Gururaj, Adv. Mr. Chinmay kalgaonkar, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv. Mr. T. N. Singh, AOR Mr. Vikas Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Rajshree Singh, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Condonation of delay sought on grounds of administrative processing, seeking legal opinions, and entrustment of the matter to counsel. (Para 2 )
3. Lack of proper follow-up and misleading statements regarding the status of similar petitions render the explanation for delay unacceptable. (Para 2 )
4. Condonation of delay is contingent upon showing sufficient cause; administrative negligence and misleading representations to the court negate such cause. (Para 2 , 3 )
5. Application for condonation of delay and the Special Leave Petition dismissed. (Para 4 )
6. Does administrative delay and lack of follow-up by the State constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay?
No. The court held that explanations involving administrative delays, failure to follow up at various stages, and negligence in filing despite knowledge of the order do not constitute sufficient cause. (Para 2 , 3 )
1. The present petition has been filed impugning order1[Dated 13.11.2009 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.34974 of 2001] passed by the Division Bench of the High Court2[High Court of Judicature at Allahabad]. 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[Hereinafter referred to as ‘DGC (Civil)’]]. 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.
