[2026:RJ-JD:8230-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 853/2025

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

3. The Inspector General Of Police, Police Headquarter (Phqs) Badi Chopar, Jaipur (Rajasthan) Pin 302002.

4. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

5. The Superintendent Of Police, Administration And Prc, Cid (Cb), Rajasthan Jaipur.

----Appellants Versus

1. Smt. Suraj Kanwar W/o Late Shri Nahar Singh, Aged About 58 Years, Constable No. 097, Resident Of Siyamali, Kambodiya, Kumbhalgarh, District- Rajsamand (Rajasthan).

2. Laxmi Rathore D/o Late Shri Nahar Singh, W/o Shri Madhu Singh, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Ed-66, Bappa Rawal Nagar, Hiran Magri, Sector-6, Manwas Khera (Rural), Udaipur (Rajasthan).

----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Deepak Chandak for Mr. BL Bhati, AAG For Respondent(s) : -

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT

Order (Oral)

13/02/2026 Per: Arun Monga,J

1. Applicant seeks condonation of delay of 181 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 or day to day explanation have been given as to why the matter remained pending.

3. For ready reference paras No.1 to 9 of the application are as below:

“1. That the appellants are filing this appeal against the order dated 23.08.2024 with an unintentional short procedural delay, inasmuch as despite the authorities of the appellants having acted with due diligence, the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period of limitation for reasons beyond the control of the appellants, which constitute sufficient and bona fide cause within the meaning of Section

5 of the Limitation Act, as mentioned hereinabove.

2. That the appellants most respectfully reiterate the contents of the memo of appeal, which may kindly be treated as part and parcel of this application for condonation of delay. At this place, it is pertinent to mention that the appellants’ case on merits is very strong and based on sound principles of law. However, if this application is not allowed, the appellants’ meritorious case would not be considered. Thus, in the interest of substantial justice, this application deserves to be allowed.

3. That after the decision of the writ petition, the same was collected and forwarded by the OIC to the Departmental Higher Authority to take a decision with regard to further steps in the matter. After the decision to file an appeal was taken in the meeting of the competent Standing Committee, the Officer-in-Charge was appointed on 02.04.2025 for filing the appeal, and the OIC contacted the office of the AAG on 04.04.2025. Therefore, the special appeal has been filed without undue delay.

4. That the above sequence of events humbly submits on behalf of the appellants that there is sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal in the interest of justice, as the same is bona fide and not intentional.

5. That it is not the length of delay which is the prime consideration for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, but the cause of delay. As the cause is sufficient and unintentional, the delay deserves to be condoned in the substantial interest of justice.

6. That the appellants were not to gain anything by deliberately causing delay in filing the appeal but, unintentionally, the delay occurred for the reasons mentioned in the above facts and circumstances of the case, notwithstanding that the authorities of the appellants have acted diligently throughout.

7. That it is settled law that when procedural/technical irregular