JUDGMENT : Civil Misc Delay Condonation Application No. Nill of 2021. Civil Misc. Recall Application No.5 of 2021. 1. Heard learned Senior counsel for the applicant Sri Ashok Mehta assisted by Sri Pradeep Kumar Shahi and the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/respondent Sri Anil Bhushan who was assisted by Sri Ashutosh Ganguly. 2. The instant application has been filed by the applicant alongwith application for condonation of delay and affidavit with a prayer for recalling the order dated 17.11.2020 passed by this Court. 3. The reasons shown in the application for condonation of delay, which is accompanied with an affidavit, are to the satisfaction of this Court. The delay in filing the recall application is hereby therefore condoned and the application for condonation of delay is allowed. 4. Writ A No.7885 of 2016 was allowed on 17.10.2019. Against this judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, the Vice Chancellor of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel University of Agriculture and Technology and one another appellant i.e. the Finance Controller of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel University of Agriculture and Technology had filed a defective special appeal being Special Appeal (Defective) No.1073 of 2020, in which on 17.11.2020 the following order was passed :- "On going through the judgement impugned, it is apparent that the directions given by the learned Single Bench are for the State of Uttar Pradesh. The University (Appellants) are not going to suffer with any burden in the event of execution/directions given. As a matter of fact, the University at its own has recommended to have parity in the pay-scales among employees of the Universities, namely, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel University, Meerut and Govind Vallabh Pant University, Pant Nagar, Uttrakhand. In view of it, the University is having no cause to file the instant appeal. On asking the learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. submits that no appeal has been filed on behalf of the State and as a matter of fact, the State has decided not to file any appeal at its own by keeping the University at liberty to avail appropriate remedy. In view of the statement given, it is apparent that the judgment impugned has attained finality so far as it relates for the State of U.P.. In view of the statement given, it is apparent that the judgment impugned has attained finality so far as it relates for the State of U.P.. The University has already stated that they can't have any grievance with the judgment impugned and, therefore, looking to the circumstances noted above, we do not find any reason to entertain this appeal. Dismissed accordingly." 5. When the State realized that on certain issues, the judgment of the learned Single Judge had to be appealed against a defective special appeal being Special Appeal (Defective) No.298 of 2021 was filed in which on 15.06.2021 the following order was passed:- "Matter is taken up through video conferencing. Instead of pursuing this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of appeal with liberty to seek review/recall of order dated 17.11.2020 passed in Special Appeal Defective No.1073 of 2020 and a liberty that in case if the State succeeds in recall of said order, to revive the present appeal. Prayer is allowed. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with the said liberty. However, we make it clear that the question of limitation shall remain open even if the appeal succeeds in recall of order dated 17.11.2020 passed in Special Appeal Defective No.1073 of 2020. No costs." 6. Thereafter, the State has now filed the instant recall application for the recalling of the order dated 17.11.2020. 7. Learned counsel for the State Sri Ashok Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Pradeep Kumar Shahi relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala (1991) 4 SCC 195 , Uptron India Limited Vs. Shammi Bhan and others (1998) 6 SCC 538 , Union of India (UOI) and others Vs. Mohanlal Likumal Punjabiand others (2004) 3 SCC 628 , Himalayan Cooperative Grup Housing Society Vs. Balwan Singh (2015) 7 SCC 373 , The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board Vs. M. Madhan Kumar MANU/TN/4552/2020, In the High Court of Madras W.A. No.670 of 2020 and has submitted that no admission/concession given by a counsel would bind a litigant, without any express instructions/authorization in that regard. 8. Balwan Singh (2015) 7 SCC 373 , The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board Vs. M. Madhan Kumar MANU/TN/4552/2020, In the High Court of Madras W.A. No.670 of 2020 and has submitted that no admission/concession given by a counsel would bind a litigant, without any express instructions/authorization in that regard. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant Sri Ashok Mehta has stated that the law is settled that a lawyer must be specifically authorized to settle and compromise a claim, and that merely on the basis of his engagement he has no implied and ostensible authority to bind his client to a compromise / settlement. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant Sri Ashok Mehta therefore states that when a statement had been made by the State with regard to the fact that no appeal would be filed it was without any instruction from his client and therefore the portion of the order dated 17.10.2020 by which it had been held that the State had decided not to file any appeal be deleted from the order dated 17.11.2020. 10. Learned Additional Advocate General has also drawn the attention of the Court to the affidavit, which the State had filed before the Contempt Court, wherein it had been stated that the State had categorically stated that the compliance would be done and that it would be subject to the recall application which the State had filed in the defective special appeal, being Special Appeal (Defective) No. 1073 of 2020. 11. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner/respondent Sri Anil Bhushan, assisted by Sri Ashutosh Ganguly and Sri Utsav Sen however has opposed the recall application and has submitted that the only conclusion which could be drawn from the the order dated 17.11.2020 was that the State had definitely made up its mind not to file a special appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in fact the State was now estopped from resiling from the statement which it had made earlier. 12. Sri Anil Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash Vs. Suresh Kumar (2020) 13 SCC 188 dated 30.01.2020 and has submitted that when a statement is made, it should be seen in the circumstances in which it was made and also the conduct of the litigant which had made the statement had to be looked into. 13. Suresh Kumar (2020) 13 SCC 188 dated 30.01.2020 and has submitted that when a statement is made, it should be seen in the circumstances in which it was made and also the conduct of the litigant which had made the statement had to be looked into. 13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties this court is of the view that the lawyer who is an agent of his client had no authority to bind his client by any statement made by him which was not made on the instruction of his client. Further, the judgment of the Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Om Prakash Vs. Suresh Kumar (supra), there was a case where the landlord had given a statement that upon the reconstruction of the structure from which the tenant was to be evicted a particular portion would be given to the tenant after the structure was reconstructed. Subsequently also in the Supreme Court the landlord had kept on giving statements that he would abide by the statement which he had given in the trial court and therefore, the Supreme Court had held that it was not a case where the appellant was not having proper instruction from his client, and therefore everything which the landlord was doing was on the instruction of his client. 14. We are thus definitely of the view that when the statement which was made by the learned Standing Counsel was not on any instruction received from his client, the court cannot bind the state on the statement made by learned Standing Counsel. We are therefore of the view that the order dated 17.11.2020 requires to be modified and therefore the second line of second paragraph the sentence "………..On asking the learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. submits that no appeal has been filed on behalf of the State and as a matter of fact, the State has decided not to file any appeal at its own by keeping the University at liberty to avail appropriate remedy." stands deleted. Also in the second last paragraph the following lines are to be deleted "In view of the statement given, it is apparent that the judgment impugned has attained finality so far as it relates for the State of U.P.." 15. Accordingly, the recall application stands disposed of. Civil Misc. Also in the second last paragraph the following lines are to be deleted "In view of the statement given, it is apparent that the judgment impugned has attained finality so far as it relates for the State of U.P.." 15. Accordingly, the recall application stands disposed of. Civil Misc. Delay Dondonation Application No. Nill of 2021 16. The reason mentioned in the delay condonation application are to the satisfaction of the Court. 17. The application is allowed. Civil Misc. Recall Application No.3 of 2021. 18. The instant restoration application has been filed by the appellant/respondent alongwith application for condonation of delay and affidavit with a prayer for recalling the order dated 17.11.2020 passed by this Court. 19. On perusal of the order dated 17.11.2020 the court finds that the Special Appeal (Defective) No.1073 of 2020 vis-a-vis the applicant University was dismissed on merit. Therefore, recall application is not maintainable. 20. The recall application is dismissed accordingly.