Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Vimal Kumar Gupta v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 9904 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 5290 (23 March 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No.21

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9904 of 2007

Vimal Kumar Gupta        ..... Petitioner


State of U.P & others       ......Respondents


Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J

Heard counsel for the petitioner and Shri M.C.Tripathi  appearing for respondent No. 3 & 4.  Learned standing counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondents no. 1 & 2.  By consent of the parties, the writ petition  is being finally disposed of.  

By this writ petition , the petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 14.2.2007 passed by Appellate authority  and the order dated 10.10.2006 passed by Joint Secretary, Kanpur Development Authority,   Kanpur.

The petitioner's case in the writ petition  is that the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground  that it is barred by time.  The counsel for the petitioner contends that  sufficient cause  was shown in the application filed in support of the appeal and the Appointing authority  taking  a too technical view  of the matter  has rejected the appeal  as barred by time.  The grounds taken in the affidavit filed in support of the appeal was that petitioner came to know about the notice  dated 3.9.2006 on 15.10.2006  to which reply was submitted on 16.10.2006 .  He submits that again a notice was issued on 10.10.2006  which came into knowledge of the  petitioner only on 2.2.2007 when he went to his house.  He submits that notice date 10.10.2006  was not served on the petitioner.  The Appointing authority   has observed that after receiving the first notice petitioner ought to have been more vigilant  and the explanation has not been accepted.  

I have perused the order impugned passed by the   Appointing authority .  The petitioner's case  that the notice dated 10.10.2006  was not served  on him and he came to know about the same only on 2.2.2006  has not been specifically disbelieved.  What the Commissioner has said that after receiving the first notice on 15.10.2006  petitioner ought to have been vigilant and since he has not shown vigilance the application deserves to be rejected.   It is well settled that while considering the "sufficient  cause"  within meaning of section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Courts' take  a liberal  attitude unless it is shown that the delay is deliberate or the reason given is palpably  wrong.  The reason that petitioner ought to  have more vigilant cannot be a ground for refusing explanation given by the appellant.  There is no finding that explanation by the appellant was wrong on the face of it or unbelievable.

In above view of the matter I am of the view that the appellant deserves condonation of delay  and appeal is to be heard on merits.  In view of the foregoing discussion, the order dated 14.2.2007  is set aside.  The appeal of the appellant be heard on merits and disposed of in accordance with law.

The writ petition  is disposed of  with the above observation.

Date 23.2.2007



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.