UKHC010098802026 2026:UHC:6471-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 245 OF 2026 28TH JULY, 2026 Ashok Kumar Joshi …… Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …… Respondents Counsel for the appellant : Mr. Vinodanand Barthwal, learned counsel through video conferencing Counsel for the respondents : Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel with Mr. M.S. Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (per Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.) Delay Condonation Application (I.A. No. 01 of 2026) 1) The appeal is reported to be beyond time by 68 days. Counsel for the respondents has no objection to condonation of delay. Accordingly, delay is condoned. Delay Condonation application is allowed. Office is directed to allot a regular number to the instant appeal. SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 245 OF 2026 2) The present intra-court appeal is directed against the order of leaned Single Judge dated 26.02.2026, whereby 1 UKHC010098802026 2026:UHC:6471-DB the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 24.12.2016, passed by District Magistrate, Garhwal dismissing his departmental appeal against the order of SDM, Barahsuin, Pauri dated 24.07.2013. The learned Single Judge has found the writ petition to be barred by delay and laches of almost 10 years and consequently declined to entertain the writ petition. 3) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Single Judge has wrongly observed in his order that the writ petition was delayed by 10 years. According to him, there was delay of only 08 years. It is further submitted that the appellant had explained the delay in paragraph 2 of the writ petition but it has not been considered by the learned Single Judge. 4) We have considered the submissions as well as the explanation for the delay given in paragraph 2 of the writ petition. We find the explanation to be completely vague. The name of the counsel who is stated to have been engaged by the petitioner to obtain copy of the order as well as the manner in which he applied for the copy and when he received the same, have not been disclosed. In absence of these details, we are not inclined to accept the vague explanation given by the petitioner for inordinate delay of 08 2 UKHC010098802026 2026:UHC:6471-DB years. We concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the challenge was highly belated and the writ petition has thus been rightly dismissed as barred by delay and laches. 5) The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 6) Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. ______________________ MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J. _________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J. Dt: 28TH JULY, 2026 Negi 3 HIMANS HU NEGI Digitally signed by HIMANSHU NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=bb3b60774012c1ef1dae20d13aaf 116e73351fdaf6878326386908a7f90d5757 , postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=75BD9D0FB7F4A80990FC51 A722A6BC552D470EB4FD2F88DDF7C18DB 2A1524A4D, cn=HIMANSHU NEGI Date: 2026.07.29 11:03:57 +05'30'