High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Vimal Kumar Gupta v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 9904 of 2007  RD-AH 5290 (23 March 2007)
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.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.