[2026:RJ-JP:26887] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7938/2025 URN: CW / 18283U / 2025 Shivaraj Singh Meena S/o Shri Jagdish Lal Meena, Aged About 60 Years, R/o House No. -83, Gayatri Nagar - A Maharani Farm, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.)-302018. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through, Secretary, Department Of Consumer Affairs, M/o Consumer Affairs, Food And Public Distribution, Krishi Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi- 110001. 2. Chairman, Executive Committee Of Bureau, Appellate Authority, Bureau Of Indian Standards Directorate General, New Delhi-110002. 3. Director General, Bureau Of Indian Standards, Department Of Consumer Affairs, M/o Consumer Affairs, Food And Public Distribution, Govt. Of India, Manak Bhawan, 9, B.s. Zafar Marg New Delhi- 110002. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.D. Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad with Mr. S. Mohd. Umer Alam Mr. Chandra Shekhar Sinha with Mr. Mayank Kanwar HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order 15/07/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of order dated 22.12.2014 (Annexure-6) whereby a penalty of reduction to one stage lower in time scale was imposed on the petitioner. The said order stood affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 27.07.2018. The appeal as preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of delay, the same having been filed after a period of more than two years and two months. [2026:RJ-JP:26887] (2 of 2) [CW-7938/2025] 2. The present writ petition was filed in the year 2025 i.e. after seven years of the appellate order been passed. The original order of punishment pertains to the year 2014. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Appellate Authority ought to have condoned the delay and heard the appeal on merit. 4. This Court perused the memo of appeal as filed by the petitioner. The reason assigned by the petitioner for delay in filing the appeal was that he apprehended that the Officer holding the office of Appellate Authority would be biased against him. It is only after the said Officer having been relieved from the Office that the appeal was filed. 5. In the specific opinion of this Court, the reason as assigned by the petitioner cannot be termed to be a reasonable one by any stretch of imagination and hence, the rejection of the appeal on the count that no sufficient cause for the delay was assigned, is in total consonance with law. 6. Furthermore, no plausible reason has been assigned as to why the present petition has been filed after a period of seven years of the order passed by the Appellate Authority. 7. This Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition on the ground of delay. No case for interference is made out and the writ petition is hence dismissed. 8. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (REKHA BORANA),J 1/KASHISH