CJ's Court
Special Appeal (Defective) No. 3 of 2010
Sri Jeet Bahadur
Vs.
District Basic Education Officer, District Basti & Anr.
Hon'ble C.K. Prasad, C.J.
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.
Writ petitioner – appellant, aggrieved by order dated 11.02.2004
dismissing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6220 of 2000 for want of taking
steps and order dated 19.11.2009 rejecting Civil Misc. Restoration
Application No. 248874 of 2008, has preferred this appeal under Rule 5
Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.
In the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner – appellant
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘appellant’), this Court, by order dated
04.02.2000, directed for issuance of notice to respondent no.2.The
appellant did not take any steps in the light of the said order for four years
and the writ petition was posted for consideration on 11.02.2004 under
Chapter XII Rule 4 of the High Court Rules. Taking note of the aforesaid
fact, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition under Chapter XII
Rule 4 of the said Rules on the said date, i.e. 11.02.2004. After more than
four and half years of the dismissal of the writ petition, the appellant filed
Civil Misc. Restoration Application No. 248874 of 2008 on 15.10.2008 for
recall of the said order and for restoration of the writ petition, which has
been rejected by order dated 19.11.2009.
Mr. P.C. Singh, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that
when the petition was listed on 11.02.2004 under Chapter XII Rule 4 of the
High Court Rules, appellant’s counsel did not mark the cause list and,
2
therefore, no steps could be taken and hence petition ought to have been
restored.
We do not find any substance in this submission. Appellant has,
nowhere, whispered as to why for these long four years, he did not take
steps. It is relevant here to state that the direction for issuance of notice was
given on 04.02.2000, whereas the writ petition was posted under Chapter
XII Rule 4 of the High Court Rules on 11.02.2004. Not only this, the
appellant had chosen to file the recall application on 15.10.2008, i.e. after
more than four and half years of the dismissal of the writ petition under
Chapter XII Rule 4 of the High Court Rules. It is expected of the appellant
to have enquired about the fate of the case and from the facts stated above, it
is evident that the appellant was negligent right from the beginning in
pursuing his case.
Mr. Singh, then, contends that the writ petition ought to have been
dismissed only against the person against whom notice was issued.
As the appellant had chosen to file the application for restoration after
more than four and half years of the dismissal of the writ petition, we are not
inclined to restore the writ petition on this ground also.
We are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge did not err in
dismissing the writ petition under Chapter XII Rule 4 of the Rules and
declining to restore the same.
We do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed accordingly.
07.01.2010
AHA
(Pankaj Mithal, J.) (C.K. Prasad, C.J.)
3
C.M. Delay Condonation Application
No. 1656 of 2010
In
Special Appeal (Defective) No. 3 of 2010
Hon'ble C.K. Prasad, C.J.
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.
This application has been filed for condoning the
delay in filing the appeal.
According to Stamp Reporter, the appeal is barred
by limitation by five years 282 days.
Various reasons, which prevented the applicant
from filing the appeal within time, have been enumerated
in the affidavit filed in support of the application.
We are satisfied that the same constitute sufficient
cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
Accordingly, delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
Application stands allowed.
07.01.2010
AHA
(C.K. Prasad, C.J.)
(Pankaj Mithal, J.)