HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD GOVERNMENT APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 325 of 2026 Court No. - 46 HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J. HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J. (Order on the Delay Condonation Application)- 1. Heard Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, the learned A.G.A. for applicant/appellant-State. 2. Perused the record. 3. Present appeal has been filed with delay. Accordingly, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by applicant-appellant seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. 4. The Stamp reporter in his report has pointed out that there is a delay of 189 days in filing the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for applicant/appellant submits that there is no deliberate negligence or laches on the part of applicant/appellant in filing the present appeal with delay. The delay in filing the present appeal has been sufficiently explained. Moreover, the cause shown for explaining the delay in filing the present appeal is not only sufficient but also bona-fide. As such, the delay in filing the present appeal stands sufficiently explained, therefore, the delay in filing the present appeal is liable to be condoned by this Court. 6. Perused the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application. 7. Having heard the learned A.G.A.-Ist for applicant/appellant-State and Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Patanjali Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : State of U.P. .....Appellant(s) Vikram Singh And Another .....Respondent(s) upon perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, we find that stereotyped grounds have been raised seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. The Apex Court in the case of Postmaster General Vs. Living Media India Ltd., (2012) 3 SCC 563 as re-affirmed in Shivamma (dead) by Lrs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969, such practice of condoning the delay on stereotyped grounds have been deprecated by the Apex Court. In view of above, we are not inclined to condone the delay in filing the present appeal. 8. As a result, the delay condonation application fails and is liable to be rejected. 9. It is, accordingly, rejected. (Ref: Order on the Leave to Appeal)- Since the delay condonation application has been rejected, therefore, the application for leave to appeal is also rejected. (Ref: Order on the memo of appeal)- In view of above, the appeal shall stand dismissed. September 30, 2026 Imtiyaz GOVAD No. 325 of 2026 2 (Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.) Digitally signed by :- IMTIYAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad