Government litigation must adhere to the same standards for condonation of delay as private parties, with negligence and casual inaction being inadequate justifications.

JUDGMENT :

(C.M. Application No.1 of 2025 In re: Special Appeal Defective No.345 of 2025)

(C.M. Application No.1 of 2024 In re: Special Appeal Defective No.418 of 2024)

1. Heard Sri Sudeep Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Ranvijay Singh, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the appellant and Sri Sudhir Pandey and Sri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel for respondent no.1.

2. These are two appeals one bearing Special Appeal Defective No.345 of 2025 by the State challenging judgment and order dated 21.07.2023 passed in Writ-A No.3696 of 2005. The other appeal bearing Special Appeal Defective No.418 of 2024 is by the Committee of Management of the Institution. Both the appeals are belated. Special Appeal Defective No.345 of 2025 has been filed with a delay of 533 days whereas Special Appeal Defective No.418 of 2024 has been filed with a delay of 348 days. First of all, we may consider the explanation for the delay.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-State had appeared and argued the matter before the writ court, so did the counsel for Committee of Management, meaning thereby, both the appellants were represented before the writ court, therefore, it is not a case where they did not know about the judgment. Now, we proceed to consider the explanation offered by the appellant-State in its appeal for filing it belatedly. But before doing so, we may mention that the limitation for filing special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT RULES , 1952 is thirty days vide Chapter IX Rule 10 of the Rules, 1952 read with Article 117 of the Schedule appended to the LIMITATION ACT , 1963.

4. When we peruse the affidavit of the State, it is said therein that judgment dated 21.07.2023 was corrected on 06.02.2024. We have perused the order dated 06.02.2024 correcting the aforesaid judgment. We find that the corrections were merely in respect of typographical errors pertaining to certain dates. Moreover, it is not the case of the appellant- State that they had moved the application for correction. Such correction application had been filed by the respondent-petitioners. Therefore, this by itself may not be a sufficient explanation for the delay. Nevertheless, we proceed to consider other facts stated in the said affidavit. According to it, copy of the said orders which are impugned herein was not sent to D.I.O.S., however, there is no disclosure as to who was required to bring it to the knowledge of the D.I.O.S. After all the D.I.O.S. was represented before the High Court when the writ was decided. Learned Standing Counsel who had argued the matter or one who was present in Court when the judgment was pronounced, as the case may, be must have noted the disposal of the writ petition on the file. It is not the case of the appellant that no such information was received from the office of Chief Standing Counsel, categorically so. Even if it was so, that is a matter to be seen by the State and that by itself will not explain the delay. According to the appellants, the D.I.O.S. came to know about the said judgment only on 12.08.2024 after filing of the contempt petition and issuance of notice therein. Even if this fact is taken at its face value though we do not accept it as such, we find that even from such date, the appeal is considerably delayed as it was filed only on 21.08.2025 that is a good more than one year from the alleged date of knowledge.

5. In fact, we have been informed that on 19.07.2024 a contempt petition was filed for non-compliance of the judgment referred hereinabove wherein after issuance of notice, charges were framed on 09.08.2025 and only then the State authorities woke up and fil