HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 11 of 2021 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. 1. Heard Shri Anil Kumar Singh Visen, learned Standing Counsel for the State appellants on the question of delay in filing the appeal. 2. The limitation prescribed for filing a special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 is 30 days vide Chapter IX Rule 10 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 read with Article 117 of the Schedule appended to the Limitation Act, 1963. In this case the delay, as reported, is of 506 days. The judgment impugned which was passed by the writ court is dated 19.07.2019. The appeal has been filed on 07.01.2021. 3. We have perused the affidavit in support of application for condonation of delay. In paragraph 3 of the said affidavit, the date of impugned judgment is mentioned and in paragraph 4, it is mentioned that on 16.08.2019, that is almost a month after rendering of the judgment, the office of appellant no.2 directed the District Agriculture Officer, Gazipur to ensure the availability of entire documents, service book, etc. and also to submit a report in the matter, which was submitted on 17.08.2019. Then appellant no.2 vide his letter dated 20.08.2019 directed the District Agriculture Officer, Gazipur to take legal opinion, which was provided on 21.08.2019, though it is not disclosed as to what was the legal opinion. Shri M.P. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent states that infact the legal opinion was not to file an appeal. Be that as it may, on 22.08.2019 a Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : C.S.C., C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent(s) : Mata Prasad Yadav State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy. Agriculture Deptt. Lucknow Andors .....Appellant(s) Baliram Singh Yadav .....Respondent(s) request was made to the Chief Standing Counsel of this Court at Lucknow to provide legal opinion. On 09.09.2019 a letter was written in this regard by appellant no.2. Paragraphs 10 to 13 then mentions about internal correspondence between various officers and ultimately on 26.11.2019 Chief Standing Counsel provided his legal opinion, that is almost two and a half months after its request. Be that as it may, on 06.05.2020, that is more than six months after receipt of legal opinion, appellant no.2 requested the State Government for consultation with the law department. As regards the benefit of the suo moto orders passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition No.3 of 2020 and consequential orders passed by this Court, we are of the opinion that the period of limitation in this case expired prior to onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, that is prior to 15.03.2020, therefore, the benefit of the said orders cannot be made available to the appellants herein, specially as except for a short period of two- three months the Allahabad High Court was conducting the proceedings through video conferencing and cases were being filed including by the State of U.P. 4. In this case, period of more than six months had expired prior to 15.03.2020 and this period was utilized only for internal correspondence between various officers of the department and the State Government which hardly shows any promptness and diligence on their part in filing the appeal. Moreover, the judgment impugned has been complied albeit after initiation of contempt proceedings. The private respondent had retired from service of the State in 2019, as informed by Shri M.P. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent. 5. Looking into the entire facts and scenario before us, we do not find it a fit case for condoning the delay as the delay is inordinate and not satisfactorily explained. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. November 17, 2025 Arnima SPLAD No. 11 of 2021 2 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench