High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
C/M Kishan Intermediate College, Dhaurhara v. State Of U.P. Through Its Secretary & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 1381 of 2005  RD-AH 6120 (22 November 2005)
COURT NO. 34
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 1381 OF 2005
Committee of Management ------------- Appellant- Petitioner
State of U.P. & Ors. ------------- Respondents
Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.
This special appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 6.10.2005, by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the C.M.W.P. No. 63572 of 2005 only on the ground of delay and latches, as no explanation had been furnished for the same.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has drawn our attention to the Ground No. 2 of the Special Appeal, wherein it has been submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid order, respondent no. 4 again rejected the representation of the appellant vide its order dated 30.11.2004. The appellant had no knowledge about the aforesaid order dated 30.11.2004 till August, 2005. In the second week of August, 2005, appellant went to the office of respondent no. 4 and made a request to him for compliance of the order passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5585 of 2004. The respondent no. 4 told that the petitioner had claimed for giving protection of the U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 to the attached Primary Section which had been rejected by the order dated 30.11.2004. Thereafter, acquiring note of the aforesaid order, he came to Allahabad in the second week of September, 2005 and contacted Shri R.C. Dwivedi, Advocate and instructed him to challenge the order dated 30.11.2004, passed by the respondent no. 4, before this Court.
In Ground No. 3, it has been submitted that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground of latches without considering the aforesaid fact. When confronted by us, learned counsel for the appellant admitted that the facts mentioned in Ground No. 2 had not been taken in the writ petition, nor he was in a position to explain as under what circumstances the new grounds had been taken without seeking prior permission of the Court and why it has not been disclosed in the memo of appeal that these facts had not been mentioned in the writ petition.
In fact, in the writ petition no explanation for delay had been given. The factual submission made in Ground No. 2 may be an afterthought, and in view of the above, we do not find any fault with the impugned judgment and order.
The special appeal stands dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.