Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 196864 (ALL)

STATE OF U.P. THRU SECY. IRRIGATION and 3 ORS. v. FAIZAAN ALI S/S 9314/2006

SPLAD/287/2008 · 2025-11-21

Rajan Roy, Rajeev Bharti

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 287 of 2008 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. C.M.A. No.44256 of 2008 (Application for Condonation of Delay) 1. Heard. 2. This appeal was filed by the State on 14.05.2008 challenging the judgment and order dated 08.11.2006 passed in Writ Petition No.9314 (S/S) of 2006. The judgment has already been complied as informed, but apart from it the appeal is belated by one year four month and odd. 3. We have gone through the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay. 4. The affidavit merely states that the impugned judgment was sent to the Office of the Executive Engineer concerned on 27.11.2006. Thereafter on 15.12.2006 the said Engineer forwarded the representation of the respondent-petitioner to the Superintending Engineer concerned seeking appropriate direction. The Superintending Engineer in turn wrote a letter dated 27.12.2006 seeking guidance from Senior Staff Officer to the Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department, who in turn on 31.01.2007 directed the Superintending Engineer to take action at his level, then the Superintending Engineer vide his letter dated 03.02.2007, that is a good one month after receipt of the said opinion, forwarded a copy of the said letter to the Executive Engineer. Even prior to it the Officers merely kept sending the file from one officer to another. On 12.02.2007 the Superintending Engineer directed the Executive Engineer Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Standing Counsel Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, Bahar Ali State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Irrigation And 3 Ors. .....Appellant(s) Faizaan Ali S/S 9314/2006 .....Respondent(s) to take further action in the matter after obtaining legal opinion from the Chief Standing Counsel. This hardly demonstrates any promptness on their part to file special appeal. The opinion was received on 31.05.2007, a good almost four months after the letters aforesaid. The opinion itself was forwarded by the Executive Engineer to the Superintending Engineer on 13.06.2007. Thereafter time has been utilized for sending comments etc. to the Superintending Engineer. Ultimately, the Superintending Engineer wrote to the State Government on 31.07.2007 to give clear directions regarding appointment of the respondent –petitioner. Again the Executive Engineer sought directions from the Superintending Engineer etc. on 21.09.2007, i.e. after almost two months of the aforesaid. On 08.11.2007, i.e. after further delay of almost two months, the State Government asked the Superintending Engineer to make available the proposal for filing the special appeal, it was then forwarded to the Engineer-in-Chief. The leisurely manner in which the appellants have proceeded does not disclose any diligence rather it discloses a casual and negligent attitude on their part. The limitation for filing a special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 is 30 days as prescribed in Chapter IX Rule 10 of the Rules, 1952 read with Article 117 of the Schedule appended to the Limitation Act, 1963. The affidavit just goes on to narrate as to how the file moved on from one desk/office to another, which by itself cannot be an explanation for the delay in view of the recent decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Shivamma (Dead) by LRS vs. Karnatka Housing Board and another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 1969 decided on 12.09.2025. Certainly not for explaining the delay of more one year and four months in filing the appeal. The appeal ultimately came to be filed on 24.04.2008 that too when the legal opinion had been given way back on 31.05.2007. 5. In view of the aforesaid decision of Shivamma (supra), we are not at all inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The application is accordingly rejected, consequently the appeal stands dismissed. November 21, 2025 Anand/- SPLAD No. 287 of 2008 2 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench