Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 96067 (ALL)

COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, VIMLA DEVI BRIJMOHAN SINGH INTER COLLEGE, SARAI PRAYAG, KANNAUJ AND ANOTH v. STATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

SPLAD/739/2025 · 2025-09-23

Arun Bhansali, Kshitij Shailendra

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 739 of 2025 Chief Justice's Court HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 13.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby while entertaining the writ petition, the interim order has been granted staying the effect and operation of the order dated 05.04.2025 passed by the Regional Joint Director of Education (Secondary), Kanpur Region Kanpur/Regional Level Committee. 2. The appeal is barred by 89 days. 3. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act alongwith an affidavit has been filed. For the reasons indicated in the application supported by affidavit, the same is allowed. Delay in filling the appeal is condoned. 4. Counsel for the appellants attempted to make submissions on merit of the writ petition pending before the learned Single Judge. However, it is apparent that learned Single Judge while granting interim order, has prima facie come to the conclusion that on account of passing of the order dated 07.06.2017 against which writ petition filed by the appellants was pending before this Court, the order impugned in the present writ petition could not be passed and passed the interim order. Further direction has been given to list the writ petition alongwith pending writ petition filed by the appellants. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Vinod Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : Meenakshi Singh (A.C.S.C.), Yogesh Kumar Saxena Committee of Management, Vimla Devi Brijmohan Singh Inter College, Sarai Prayag, Kannauj and another .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and 5 others .....Respondent(s) 5. Having gone through the order passed by learned Single Judge, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. The appellants have already filed response to the writ petition and application seeking vacation of the interim order. The appellants need to pursue the said application before the learned Single Judge and we have no doubt that the matter shall be heard and decided with expedition. 6. With the above observations, the appeal stands disposed of. September 24, 2025 RK/Sazia SPLAD No. 739 of 2025 2 (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.) Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad