Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. SAROJ CHAUDHARY versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Saroj Chaudhary v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT TAX No. 124 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 1764 (23 January 2006)

 

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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court no. 55

Civil Misc. Writ Petition no.  124 Of 2006.

Smt. Saroj Chaudhary, Ghaziabad. ... Petitioner.

Vs

State of U. P. and others. ...Opp. Parties.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.01.2006 passed by the Special Secretary (respondent no. 2) rejecting the application as barred by limitation.

The brief facts of the case are that against the order of District Magistrate dated 26.10.2005, petitioner filed a Writ Petition no. 1580 of 2005.  The said Writ Petition was dismissed on 24.11.2005 on the ground of alternative remedy.    According to the petitioner, the said order was received through her Counsel on 01.12.2005.  Thereafter, petitioner had fallen ill and was advised to bed rest up to 18.12.2005.  Thus, appeal could be filed on 20.12.2005 beyond time alongwith an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act.  The respondent no. 2 refused to condone the delay and rejected the appeal as barred by limitation.  The respondent no. 2 has refused to condone the delay on the ground that in the Medical Certificate filed in support of illness, there was no signature of the petitioner and thus, the Medical Certificate could not be accepted.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

With the consent of both the parties, the present petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

In my view, order of respondent is not sustainable.  While considering the application for condonation of delay, respondent has taken a pedantic view, and refused to condone the delay, merely because, Medical Certificate did not bear the signature of the petitioner.  The reason of her illness in filing the appeal beyond time, cannot be disputed in the absence of any contrary material.  It is settled principle of law that in the matter of condonation of delay, a pragmatic view should be taken and not pedantic.  On the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, delay in filing the appeal is liable to condone.

In the result, writ petition is allowed.  Order passed by the respondent no. 2 dated 12.01.2006 is quashed and the respondent no. 2 is directed to decide the appeal on merit within one month from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order which the petitioner under takes to file within a period of one weeks.

Dt:23.01.2006.

MZ/-


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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