Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 1180 (HP)

STATE OF HP AND ANR v. Suresh Kumar

CMP.M/1829/2025 · 2026-03-30

Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, Jiya Lal Bhardwaj

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

State of H.P. and Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar CMP(M) No.1829 of 2025 Item No.D-12 30.03.2026 Present: Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General, for the applicants/State. Mr. Uday Singh Banyal, Advocate, for the respondent. CMP(M) No.1829 of 2025 Application for condonation of delay of 108 days’ in ling the appeal has been led by the State against the judgment dated 04.10.2024. The same has been opposed by ling a reply. 2. In the application, it is mentioned that the copy of judgment was received in the o)ce of Directorate of Elementary Education on 18.11.2024 and the matter was then examined by the Government, which decided to le the appeal on 06.01.2025. The appeal was thereafter vetted and drafted on 18.02.2025 and led on 03.03.2025. Therefore, the delay is sought to be justied on the ground that time was consumed in correspondence and examination of the case at various levels and that there was a bonade endeavour to le the appeal within the stipulated period of limitation. 3. The reply as such led by the respondent is that the le-pushing in bureaucratic red-tape has been deprecated and the writ petitioner has been waiting for years to see the judgment implemented. 4. A perusal of the record would go on to show that the certied copy of the judgment was applied on the next day, i.e. 05.10.2024, and delivered on 06.11.2024. Thereafter, copy of the judgment was received on 18.11.2024 by the o)ce of Directorate of Elementary Education and taken up with the Government on 25.11.2024, and the decision to le the appeal was taken on 06.01.2025. 5. Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that each and every day’s delay is not required to be explained, in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. Mst. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107 and G. Ramegowda vs. Land Acquisition Ocer, (1988) 2 SCC 142 as su)cient cause has been shown and there was no intention to delay the ling of appeal. 6. Keeping in view the above sequence of events, we condone the delay. 7. Application stands disposed of. LPA No.________ of 2026 8. Appeal be registered. 9. To come up on 25.05.2026. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice March 30, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (ankit) Judge