Trial Courts Must Award Just Compensation In POCSO Cases Beyond Fine Amounts; Interim Payment No Reason To Deny Final Relief: Madras High Court Section 482 CrPC Power Not For Conducting 'Mini-Trial'; Disputed Facts Must Be Adjudicated At Trial: Allahabad High Court Right To Walk On Demarcated Footpaths Is A Fundamental Right; Municipal Authorities Under Enforceable Duty To Provide Pedestrian Infrastructure: Supreme Court Right To Walk Is A Fundamental Right Under Articles 19(1)(d) & 21; Priority Over Motorised Vehicles: Supreme Court Municipal Commissioner Is Disciplinary Authority For All Employees Post-1993 Amendment; Existing Regulations Can't Fetter Statutory Power: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Force Plaintiff To Accept Monetary Compensation Instead Of Removal Of Encroachment Without Prayer: Supreme Court Recruitment Merit Is Not A Vested Right; Public Interest Justifies Disclosing Marks Of Candidates Outside Selection Zone: Supreme Court Special Police Establishment Not An 'Intelligence & Security Organisation', State Cannot Exempt It From RTI Act: Supreme Court Medical Practitioner Not Negligent Merely Because Result Was A Failure If Procedure Adopted Was Acceptable To Medical Science: Calcutta High Court Long Service Cannot Be Denied Regularization On Mere Technicalities If Appointment Wasn't Illegal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejection Of Nomination Paper Can Only Be Challenged Through Election Petition; Article 329(b) Bars Writ Jurisdiction: Supreme Court NI Act | Benefit Of Presumptions Under Sections 118 & 139 Not Available If Complainant Lacks Direct Knowledge Of Transaction: Kerala High Court Landowners Entitled To Solatium Under National Highways Act; Failure To Grant Is Ground To Challenge Award Under Section 34: MP High Court Transfer Policy Only Broad Guideline, Not Enforceable Under Article 226/227 In Absence Of Mala Fides: Rajasthan High Court

Explanation Given For Seeking Condonation of Huge Delay of 1,633 Days Cannot Be Accepted – Supreme Court on State’s Inefficiency

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court of India has dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the State of U.P., citing the state’s failure to provide a valid justification for a delay of 1,633 days in challenging a High Court order.

The judgment revolved around the question of whether the condonation of a substantial delay in filing an SLP could be permitted based on the reasons provided by the state government.

The SLP aimed to overturn a decision from November 13, 2009, by the High Court. However, the petition was not filed until years later, in 2014. The state attributed the delay to administrative hurdles and legal misadvice, asserting that these factors impeded the timely filing of the petition.

Condonation of Delay: The justices criticized the state’s management of its legal affairs, noting that the presence of the state in the High Court hearings negated any claims of ignorance about the order. Justice Ravikumar highlighted, “The explanation given for seeking condonation of huge delay…cannot be accepted,” indicating that bureaucratic delays and mismanagement are unacceptable excuses.

Misrepresentation of Facts: The judgment also pointed out inaccuracies in the state’s representation of related legal precedents, which misled the court about the status of similar cases. This misrepresentation diminished the credibility of the state’s application for delay condonation.

Decision Concluding its findings, the Supreme Court dismissed the condonation of delay application, along with the SLP itself, firmly stating that inefficiencies and errors on the state’s part do not constitute “sufficient cause” under the law.

Date of Decision: May 3, 2024

State of U.P. & Another vs. Mohan Lal

Latest Legal News