HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 645 of 2024 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. (C.M. Application No.1 of 2024- Delay Condonation Application) 1. Heard learned Additional C.S.C. appearing for the State-appellants and Ms. Shivani Maurya, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This is an appeal challenging the judgement and order dated 4.7.2024 and its correction vide order dated 19.7.2024 passed in Writ-C No. 9454 of 2022. 3. We have perused the affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay. 4. The affidavit speaks about the impugned judgement having been rendered on 4.7.2024 in Writ-C No. 9454 of 2022 and its correction on 19.7.2024. Thereafter the affidavit says about the matter having been referred to the Directorate, Basic Education, U.P., Lucknow by District Basic Education Officer, Fatehpur without mentioning any date as to when this was done. The Directorate then asked the District Basic Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent(s) : Yadukul Shiromani Srivastava (Y.S.Lohit), Mamta Tripathi, Shivani Maurya, Yadukul Shiromani Srivastava (Y.S.Lohit) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. And 4 Others .....Appellant(s) C/M Of Ramesh Kalyankari Junior High School Distt. Fatehpur And Another .....Respondent(s) Education Officer, Fatehpur to seek legal opinion from the C.S.C. of the High Court at Lucknow without mentioning any date as to when this was done. The District Basic Education Officer then wrote a letter dated 7.8.2024 to the Chief Standing Counsel who in turn gave his opinion on 16.8.2024 which was communicated to the Directorate, Basic Education, U.P., Lucknow. The affidavit does not mention the date when this was done. The State Government referred the matter to the Law Department. The affidavit does not disclose the date when this was done. The Department of Law and Justice granted permission to file an appeal on 29.8.2024 which was received from the administrative department of the State Government along with letter dated 30.8.2024. These explanations are nothing but about movement of the file from one desk to another or one department to another. 5. Nevertheless, the next paragraph of the affidavit says that the District Basic Education Officer, Fatehpur wrote a letter dated 21.8.2024 requesting the Chief Standing Counsel for filing the special appeal. Now this is incongruous as the permission for filing the appeal was granted on 29.8.2024 which was received on 30.8.2024, therefore, the District Basic Education Officer, Fatehpur could not have written such letter on 21.8.2024. No such letter or documents have been annexed with the affidavit, which only goes on to show the casual manner in which the explanations have been offered for the delay. The affidavit then says that the pairokar along with the letter dated 21.8.2024 contacted the office of the Chief Standing Counsel of the High Court at Lucknow on 05.09.2024. 6. On being confronted, Shri Anand Singh, learned Additional C.S.C. says that in fact, the date 21.8.2024 has incorrectly been mentioned in para 6 of the affidavit. This letter dated 21.8.2024 was written to the State SPLAD No. 645 of 2024 2 Government prior to grant of permission to file the appeal, meaning thereby, there is no explanation whatsoever. Ultimately, the preparation of appeal was assigned to the Standing Counsel on 7.9.2024, who perused the records on 12.9.2024. Para 8 of the affidavit then says that on 26.11.2024, the pairokar made available the comments and records relevant to filing of the appeal to the Standing Counsel. There is no explanation for the intervening period between 12.9.2024 to 26.11.2024. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by the State, all that has been stated in this regard is that the grounds of appeal had not been approved by the State Government and it is this which took time and ultimately, the same were approved and provided on 26.11.2024. 7. This also hardly discloses any promptness and diligence in filing of the appeal. It only demonstrates that just for approval of the grounds, the State took more than one and a half month. It is not an explanation which by itself would persuade us to condone the delay, keeping in mind the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgement in Shivamma (Dead) by LRS vs. Karnatka Housing Board and another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 1969 decided on 12.09.2025. Thereafter, the appeal has been filed on 11.12.2024, however, there were some defects which were removed on 13.12.2024. The limitation for filing special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 is 30 days vide Chapter IX Rule 10 of the Rules, 1952 read with Article 117 of the Schedule appended to the Limitation Act, 1963. 8. It is not the case of the appellants that any fraud was committed by the respondents. In fact, the appeal has been filed only after initiation of contempt proceedings by the respondents. Such delay on the part of the SPLAD No. 645 of 2024 3 State Government, that too, in a case where cost had been imposed, is unacceptable. The delay of 130 days is inordinate and has not been explained satisfactorily. 9. Accordingly, we reject the application for condonation of delay. (Order on Appeal) 10. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed. November 11, 2025 Shravan SPLAD No. 645 of 2024 4 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench