Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 579 (MP)

State of M. P. v. K. L. Asre

2010-05-19

A.K.MISHRA, S.C.SINHO

body2010
Judgment ( 1. ) There is delay of 1468 days in filing of this writ appeal. The decision was rendered by the Single Bench on 7/11/2005 in Writ Petition No. 1070/2003 (S). The Writ appeal has been preferred on 30/12/2009 after the delay of approximately four years. Application {I.A.No. 13178/2009}, has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. ( 2. ) It is submitted that the order has been complied with on the basis of the order passed in the case of respondent K.L.Asre, the other incumbents are demanding similar relief which is causing heavy financial burden upon the exchequer. The Law Department granted sanction to file appeal on 10.12.2009. Thereafter, the appeal has been preferred on 30/12/2009. ( 3. ) It is not the case set up in the application that the appellants were not awared of the order dated 7.11.2005, they were very much awared of the order having been passed and it was the subject matter of Contempt Petition No. 1985/2006. ( 4. ) A perusal of the order of Contempt Petition No. 1985/2006 would make it clear that the said contempt petition was filed in the month of August 2006. The reply was filed in September 2006. The order was complied with and the benefit of order was extended. This Court finally decided the said contempt petition vide order dated 3/11/2006. ( 5. ) It is apparent from the said contempt petition that the appellants not only complied with the order but were very much aware of the order having been passed. In the application {I.A.No. 13718/2009} which has been filed for condonation of delay, it is mentioned that the Law Department granted sanction on 10.12.2009. TheOfficer-In-Chargewas appointed on 14.12.2009. The delay with effect from 7.11.2005 to 10.12.2009 has not been explained. Thus, we find no ground so as to condone the inordinate delay in the instant case that too after having complied with the order. ( 6. ) We are not inclined to accept the submission that as the order in the case of K.L. Asre is being followed in other cases, we should condone the delay. In our opinion, it is open to the appellants to assail the legality of order in those cases. ( 6. ) We are not inclined to accept the submission that as the order in the case of K.L. Asre is being followed in other cases, we should condone the delay. In our opinion, it is open to the appellants to assail the legality of order in those cases. As the order has been passed by the Single Bench, this order shall not come in their way to assail the subsequent order in appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. However, due to inordinate delay in the instant case, we do not find any ground so as to condone the delay. ( 7. ) Resultantly, I.A.No. 13718/2009 is dismissed and as a sequel thereto, the writ appeal also stands dismissed.