AKHILESH KUMAR CHATURVEDI v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. SECY. EDUCATION DEPTT. LKO. AND 4 OTHERS
CMRAD/62/2025 · 2025-04-25
Arun Bhansali, Jaspreet Singh
Review Petitionbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 136212 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 136212 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23942-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 62 of 2025 Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Chaturvedi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. through Secy. Education Deptt. Lko. and 4 others Counsel for Applicant :- In Person Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
1. This review petition filed on 21.04.2025 is directed against judgement dated 02.11.2015 passed in Special Appeal No. 526 of 2015 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. 2. The special appeal arose from a judgement of a learned Single Judge dated 28.09.2015 whereby the learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition filed by the applicant herein and dismissed the writ petition filed by respondent no.4 herein. 3. The Division Bench allowed the special appeal and the order of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the applicant was set aside and also set aside the dismissal of the writ petition filed by respondent no.4. 4. The review petition is barred by 2712 days. 5. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed along with an affidavit in support of the application. 6. Submissions have been made that the judgement in the special appeal was delivered on 2.11.2015, special leave petition filed by the applicant was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 05.01.2016. It is claimed that an information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 which was sought on 24.04.2023, was provided to the applicant on 9.11.2023 regarding non availability of record. It is then claimed that as
the applicant was not having any record of the case, he applied for certified copies which were made available to him on 20.1.2025 and on 9.4.2025, he was advised by counsel to file review petition and that as the applicant is victim of fraud, the delay cannot come in his way and consequently sought condonation of delay. 7. A bare perusal of the averments made in the application seeking condonation of over 9 years' delay in filing the review petition would reveal that the same is bereft of any particulars.
Except for indicating dates of order passed by the Division Bench, dismissal of special leave petition by Hon'ble Supreme Court, seeking/receipt of information under RTI after lapse of 8 years in the year 2023 and getting advice from the counsel, nothing has been indicated which could be termed as sufficient cause in approaching this Court with such inordinate delay. No case for condonation of delay in filing the review petition is made out. 8. As the applicant was appearing in person, looking to his age, we provided hearing to him. However, except for making absolutely bald and vague allegations regarding passing of the judgement by the Division Bench, which had nothing to do with the merit of the matter, he failed to point out any fact much less glaring fact so as to require any further investigation by the Court. 9. In view of above discussions, the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the review petition is dismissed. Consequently, the review petition is also dismissed as barred by limitation. Order Date :- 25.4.2025 RK (Jaspreet Singh, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench