Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 536 of 2018 Appellant :- Rajvir Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Ajay Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal.
2. Heard.
3. Learned Standing Counsel did not propose to file any counter affidavit and stated that the Court may consider the explanation and pass appropriate order.
4. We are satisfied with reason for delay explained in affidavit accompanying delay condonation application.
5. Delay in filing appeal is hereby condoned.
6. This application, accordingly, stands allowed.
Order Date :- 21.8.2018 KA (Delay Condn.1/2018) Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 536 of 2018 Appellant :- Rajvir Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Ajay Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
1. The delay in filing this appeal having been condoned vide order of date passed on Delay Condonation Application, let appeal be registered with regular number and old number shall also continue to be shown in bracket for finding out details of case, whenever required by parties with reference to either of the two numbers.
2. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.
3. This intra-Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1952") has arisen from judgment and order dated 21.05.2015 passed by learned Single Judge in writ petition no.27229 of 2015 holding that judgment of learned Single Judge, relied by appellant, cannot be relied in view of subsequent decision of Division Bench decision dated 06.05.2015 in Special Appeal Defective No.343 of 2015 (State of U.P. and others Vs. Pankaj Kumar). It has also observed that judgment of learned Single Judge insofar as it is not affected by Division Bench judgment dated 06.05.2015 would be available to appellant, but, that part, which appellant wanted to be extended to him and was already reversed by Division Bench, cannot be allowed to the appellant.
4. Learned counsel for appellant could not dispute that extent of direction given in judgment of learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.38524 of 2010, benefits whereof appellant is seeking in present 2015 (supra).
5. We, therefore, find no fault in the judgment of learned Single Judge warranting interference.
6. Dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.8.2018 KA