Express News Service
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court rapped the Uttar Pradesh government over a delay in challenging the judgement of the Allahabad High Court after 1173 days with “incorrect particulars.”
While rejecting the plea with a cost of Rs 1 lakh, the apex court said it had no doubt that such matters are filed in a “cursory manner” and chastised the state government over the “casual manner” in which the application seeking condonation of delay was filed.
A bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy said, “It is also disturbing to notice that the application has been filed in a casual manner before this Court, as could be seen from paragraph 6 of the extraction aforesaid, where the date of judgment and particulars of the appeal are not of the present matter at all. Obviously, such incorrect particulars have occurred because of preparation of the application in a casual manner, essentially with reproduction or copying of the contents from any other application.”
The court also said, “In the totality of circumstances of this case, we have declined such a prayer for filing a better affidavit. The State litigation, in our view, cannot be taken so casually that the application seeking to explain an inordinate delay of 1173 days is filed bereft of all the necessary particulars and is containing incorrect particulars.”
The state of Uttar Pradesh and others had challenged the May 17, 2019 verdict of the High Court which enhanced the compensation to a Jaunpur-based woman for her land that was acquired by the government. Since the plea was filed after a delay, the state had also filed an application urging the court to condone the delay. It was argued in the application that the plea couldn’t be filed due to the pandemic.
Terming the reasons as baseless, the SC said, “A cursory reference to the pandemic situation is baseless for the reason that no such situation was prevalent on the date of passing of the order by the High Court and at least seven months thereafter. Moreover, the suspended limitation period due to the pandemic came to an end on 31.03.2022 and there is no explanation whatsoever for an inordinate delay even thereafter.”
The bench left it open for the state to recover the cost from the officers responsible for filing the petition with an “inexplicable delay” without sufficient cause and without any justification.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court rapped the Uttar Pradesh government over a delay in challenging the judgement of the Allahabad High Court after 1173 days with “incorrect particulars.”
While rejecting the plea with a cost of Rs 1 lakh, the apex court said it had no doubt that such matters are filed in a “cursory manner” and chastised the state government over the “casual manner” in which the application seeking condonation of delay was filed.
A bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy said, “It is also disturbing to notice that the application has been filed in a casual manner before this Court, as could be seen from paragraph 6 of the extraction aforesaid, where the date of judgment and particulars of the appeal are not of the present matter at all. Obviously, such incorrect particulars have occurred because of preparation of the application in a casual manner, essentially with reproduction or copying of the contents from any other application.”
The court also said, “In the totality of circumstances of this case, we have declined such a prayer for filing a better affidavit. The State litigation, in our view, cannot be taken so casually that the application seeking to explain an inordinate delay of 1173 days is filed bereft of all the necessary particulars and is containing incorrect particulars.”
The state of Uttar Pradesh and others had challenged the May 17, 2019 verdict of the High Court which enhanced the compensation to a Jaunpur-based woman for her land that was acquired by the government. Since the plea was filed after a delay, the state had also filed an application urging the court to condone the delay. It was argued in the application that the plea couldn’t be filed due to the pandemic.
Terming the reasons as baseless, the SC said, “A cursory reference to the pandemic situation is baseless for the reason that no such situation was prevalent on the date of passing of the order by the High Court and at least seven months thereafter. Moreover, the suspended limitation period due to the pandemic came to an end on 31.03.2022 and there is no explanation whatsoever for an inordinate delay even thereafter.”
The bench left it open for the state to recover the cost from the officers responsible for filing the petition with an “inexplicable delay” without sufficient cause and without any justification.
