Allahabad High Court
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, JAI PRAKASH DEGREE COLLEGEversusSTATE OF UP AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the 382‑day delay is not condonable as the reason of non‑hearing does not satisfy the requirements of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, rendering the appeal barred.
Summary
The Committee of Management of Jai Prakash Degree College appealed a 06‑12‑2024 interim order that barred recognition of its elections without court leave. The appeal was filed 382 days after the order, exceeding the limitation period, and the appellant sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, alleging adjournments and legal advice not to file earlier. The respondents argued that the delay was self‑inflicted and that the interim order was lawful. The Court examined the record and held that the mere fact that the writ petition was not heard promptly does not constitute a sufficient ground to condone such a long delay. Consequently, the application for condonation was dismissed and the special appeal was deemed barred, with the matter of the writ petition ordered to be listed for hearing. The appeal was therefore disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether a special appeal filed 382 days after the impugned interim order can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
- Whether the reason of non‑hearing of the writ petition justifies condonation of delay.
Legislation cited
- Limitation Act — s. 5
Subjects
- limitation
- condonation of delay
- special appeal
- interim order
- writ petition
- procedural law
- court jurisdiction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 66 of 2026
Committee of Management, Jai Prakash Degree
College .....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of UP and 4 others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Gajendra Pratap (Sr. Adv.), Jitendra
Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ashok Khare (Sr. Adv.),
Pushpendra Kumar Yadav, Shashi
Prakash Rai
Chief Justice's Court
HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
1. This appeal is directed against interim order dated 06.12.2024 passed
by learned Single Judge in Writ - C No. 40642 of 2024, whereby learned
Single Judge ordered in relation to the institution in question that if the
elections have already not been recognized, the same will not be
recognized without leave of the Court.
2. The appeal is barred by 382 days.
3. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed
supported by affidavit seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
4. Submissions have been made that there exists a circumstantial delay in
filing the appeal. The delay was occasioned on account of the fact that the
appellant was waiting for the hearing of the writ petition and it was
advised, at the time of passing of the interim order, not to file the special
appeal but on account of continuous adjournments by respondent Nos. 4
and 5, the appellant has been advised to file the present special appeal.
5. Based on the said submissions, it is claimed that there is no wilful or
deliberate delay in filing the present appeal. Further indication has been
made that under legal advice, the appeal was not filed when the order
impugned was passed. Based on the said submissions, it has been prayed
SPLAD No. 66 of 2026
2
that the appeal be treated as within limitation.
6. Counsel for the appellant questioned the validity of the order
impugned. Submissions were made that both the indications made in the
order regarding the order of Vice-Chancellor directing the Committee of
Management to hold election being under challenge and as to whether
Society or Trust would run the institution is still engaging attention of the
University are factually incorrect inasmuch as the Vice-Chancellor has
only nominated the Election Officer and not ordered for holding of the
elections and that no proceedings are pending at the level of the
University and therefore, the order impugned passed, based on the said
contentions as noticed, deserves to be set aside.
7. Counsel for the respondents contested the application seeking
condonation of delay. Submissions were made that only on account of
alleged non-hearing of the matter by the learned Single Judge, cannot be a
reason for seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal after more
than one year of passing of the order. Further submissions have been
made that on the one hand, the respondents are being accused of getting
the matter adjourned, however, on part of the appellant, neither reply to
the writ petition nor application seeking vacation of the interim order has
been filed and therefore, the non-hearing of the matter is at the behest and
due to the conduct of the appellant itself. Submissions have been made
that the order impugned before the learned Single Judge is ex-facie illegal
and against the law and therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified
in passing the order impugned, which even otherwise does not call for any
interference.
8. We have considered the submissions made and have perused the
material available on record.
9. As noticed, the appeal is barred by 382 days.
10. The only plea raised in the application seeking condonation of delay
apparently is that after grant of interim order in presence of counsel for
the appellant, the matter is not getting heard. The limited order sheets,
which have been placed on record, indicate that while granting the interim
order on 06.12.2024, the matter was ordered to be listed 'as fresh' on
SPLAD No. 66 of 2026
3
06.01.2025 and on that date, the matter was adjourned at the instance of
the respondent herein and on the next occasion, i.e., on 24.03.2025, at the
request of the appellant, the matter was got adjourned.
11. It is surprising that on the one hand a grievance qua the grant of
interim order is being made and the fact that the matter is not getting
heard is being projected as the reason for filing the special appeal, but so
far neither the counter affidavit to the petition nor application seeking
vacation of the interim order has been filed, which necessarily shows that
only with a view to seek condonation of delay, the plea pertaining to the
matter not getting heard, is sought to be projected.
12. The fact that interim order was passed in presence of counsel for the
appellant and the same was neither questioned immediately nor any
attempt was made to get the order vacated, clearly shows that for the
reason other than the purported non-hearing of the matter, the present
appeal has been filed.
13. Be that as it may, we are firmly of the opinion that merely because
after an interim order has been granted by learned Single Judge in the
presence of the other party and for any reason, the writ petition/stay
application cannot be heard in a given period, the same, by itself, cannot
be a reason to question the validity of the interim order with inordinate
delay seeking condonation of delay on the said ground. We do not find
that the reason as projected in the application seeking condonation of 382
days' delay is sufficient for the purpose,.
14. Consequently, the application seeking condonation of delay is
dismissed. However, looking to the nature of plea raised, the writ petition
may be listed before the learned Single Judge on 16.04.2026. It is
expected that the matter would be given some priority and would be heard
with expedition.
15. With the the above direction, the appeal stands disposed of.
(Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.)
March 24, 2026
Mukesh Pal
Digitally signed by :-
MUKESH PAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…