HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 819 of 2009 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. C.M.A. No.114213 of 2009 (Application for Condonation of Delay) 1. Heard. 2. This is an appeal filed by the State challenging the judgment and order dated 28.07.2009 passed by the Writ Court in Writ Petition No.4646 (S/S) of 1997. The appeal is belated. It is delayed by 2 months and 29 days as reported. The belated appeal has been pending since 2009 without the delay being condoned. In the interregnum the judgment has already been complied with. 3. We have perused the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay in the light of the law as enunciated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a recent decision in the case of Shivamma (dead) by LRS Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and Ors. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 1969. The affidavit after mentioning the date of impugned judgment, i.e. 28.07.2009 straightaway goes on to state that after it being rendered, the Law Department granted permission to file the appeal on 29.10.2009. There is no explanation as to what happened in the interregnum. After 29.10.2009 request was made by the concerned official on 30.10.2009 to the Chief Standing Counsel for filing the appeal which was ultimately filed on 21.11.2009. In the interregnum the pairokar contacted Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Standing Counsel Counsel for Respondent(s) : P.K. Khare State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Medical And Health And Ors. .....Appellant(s) U.P. Laboratory Technicians Ass. And Anr. .....Respondent(s) the Standing Counsel on different dates and finally on 06.11.2009 along with the records when the appeal was prepared, i.e. on 10.11.2009. It is hardly an explanation which could satisfy the tests laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Shivamma (supra). 4. Though the delay is only of about 2 months and 29 days, there has to be some explanation which should also be satisfactory. Therefore, we find no reason to condone the delay, certainly not such a belated stage when the judgment has already been complied with as informed by Shri Nishant Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 5. The application for condonation of delay is accordingly rejected, consequently the appeal is also dismissed. November 11, 2025 Anand/- SPLAD No. 819 of 2009 2 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench