##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:5683-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 986/2025

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through - Chief Secretary To

Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariate, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur

(Rajasthan).

3. The Superintendent Of Police, District Banswara,

(Rajasthan).

----Appellants

Versus

Priyanka Patidar D/o Shri Parmeshwar Patidar, Aged About 30

Years, Resident Of Village Jolana, Tehsil-Garhi, District-Banswara

(Rajasthan).

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Deepak Chandak, AAAG on behalf

of Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG

Mr. Ravindra Jala, AAAG on behalf of

Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, AAG

Mr. Nathu Singh Rathore, AAAG on

behalf of Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG

For Respondent(s) : ---

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT

Order (Oral)

31/01/2026

Per: Arun Monga, J.

1. Applicant seeks condonation of delay of 485 days in filing the

accompanied appeal. For the reasons stated hereinafter, this is not

a fit case where discretion to condone the delay ought to be

exercised.

2. The explanation for seeking condonation is totally mechanical

and there seems to be no application of mind. No specific details

(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 04:31:03 PM)

(Downloaded on 15/02/2026 at 04:22:37 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5683-DB] (2 of 6) [SAW-986/2025]

or day to day explanation have been given as to why the matter

remained pending.

3. For ready reference paras No.1 to 6 of the application are as

below:

“1. That the above-mentioned special appeal has been preferred

against the order dated 11.01.2024.

2. That after obtaining a copy of the order dated 11.01.2024 and legal

opinion, the matter was forwarded to the Additional Director General

of Police.

3. That the Inspector General of Police (Rules) requested the Secretary,

Department of Home, to provide appropriate sanction for filing an

appeal against the order dated 11.01.2024.

4. That the competent authority informed that the decision to file an

appeal against the order dated 11.01.2024 had been taken by the

Administrative Department, and the said decision was forwarded to the

competent authority by appointing the OIC.

5. That the OIC was appointed and, after obtaining the letter and

record of the case, he approached the office of the Additional Advocate

General for preparing and filing an appeal against the order dated

11.01.2024, and thereafter, the appeal was prepared and the same was

filed without any further delay.

6. That the delay in filing the special appeal is unintentional and bona

fide, and an important question of law is involved in the case which has

a far-reaching effect, and therefore, in the interest of justice, this

application for condonation of delay may be allowed.”

4. Learned counsel for the applicant/State argues that the delay

in filing the present special appeal is unintentional and bona fide.

After obtaining the order dated 11.01.2024 and legal opinion, the

matter was processed through the competent authorities for

obtaining sanction, including the Additional Director General of

Police, Inspector General of Police (Rules), and the Department of

Home. Upon approval by the Administrative Department, an

Officer-in-Charge was appointed, who, after collecting the relevant

record, approached the office of the learned Additional Advocate

General for preparation and filing of the appeal, which was

thereafter filed without any further delay.

5. We are unable to persuade ourselves with the aforesaid. It is

a settled position in law that delay confers crystallized rights in

(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 04:31:03 PM)

(Downloaded on 15/02/2026 at 04:22:37 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5683-DB] (3 of 6) [SAW-986/2025]

favour of a litigant by virtue of law of limitation. Delay and latches

since result in freezing of the vested rights in a party, which seeks

enforcement of the same, the said right cannot be taken away

unless there is a sufficient cause shown by the party seeking

condonation of delay.

6. No doubt in deserving cases, Courts are liberal to grant

indulgence but insta