Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Rajan Roy, Rajeev Bharti
State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education U.P. Lko. – Appellant
Versus
Ram Nayan Yadav – Respondent
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
Government litigation must adhere to the same standards for condonation of delay as private parties, with negligence and casual inaction being inadequate justifications.
Condonation of delay under the Limitation Act requires substantial justification, and the State is treated no differently than private litigants in these matters.
The court held that bureaucratic inefficiencies do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning delays in appeals, emphasizing accountability in litigation processes.
Administrative lethargy and bureaucratic delays do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning inordinate delays by state in filing appeals; bona fides and vigilance required.
The State must provide satisfactory reasons for delay in filing petitions; bureaucratic inefficiency is no excuse. Condonation of delay should not undermine the principles of timely justice.
The court emphasized the accountability of State-Authorities for inaction and held that the impersonal machinery of the government cannot be used as a ground for condonation of delay.
The court ruled that mere negligence and inaction do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning a significant delay in filing an appeal.
The courts reiterated that administrative delays are not sufficient grounds for condoning delays in legal proceedings, emphasizing equal treatment under the law for all litigants.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
