SC raps UP authorities for submitting plea after 1173 days with ‘incorrect particulars’

Express News Service

NEW DELHI: Supreme Court rapped the Uttar Pradesh authorities over a delay in difficult the judgement of the Allahabad High Court after 1173 days with “incorrect particulars.” 

While rejecting the plea with a value of Rs 1 lakh, the apex court docket mentioned it had little doubt that such issues are filed in a “cursory manner” and chastised the state authorities over the “casual manner” during which the appliance looking for condonation of delay was filed.

A bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy mentioned, “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 docket additionally mentioned, “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 excessive court docket which enhanced the compensation to a Jaunpur-based girl for her land that was acquired by the federal government. Since the plea was filed after a delay, the state had additionally filed an utility urging the court docket to condone the delay. It was argued within the utility that the plea couldn’t be filed as a result of pandemic.

Terming the explanations as baseless, the SC mentioned, “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 get well the fee from the officers chargeable for submitting the petition with an “inexplicable delay” with out adequate trigger and with none justification.

NEW DELHI: Supreme Court rapped the Uttar Pradesh authorities over a delay in difficult the judgement of the Allahabad High Court after 1173 days with “incorrect particulars.” 

While rejecting the plea with a value of Rs 1 lakh, the apex court docket mentioned it had little doubt that such issues are filed in a “cursory manner” and chastised the state authorities over the “casual manner” during which the appliance looking for condonation of delay was filed.

A bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy mentioned, “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 docket additionally mentioned, “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 excessive court docket which enhanced the compensation to a Jaunpur-based girl for her land that was acquired by the federal government. Since the plea was filed after a delay, the state had additionally filed an utility urging the court docket to condone the delay. It was argued within the utility that the plea couldn’t be filed as a result of pandemic.

Terming the explanations as baseless, the SC mentioned, “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 get well the fee from the officers chargeable for submitting the petition with an “inexplicable delay” with out adequate trigger and with none justification.