Shivaji Rathore 18 Dec 2025
While dealing with an extraordinary delay of 5,743 days in filing a Review Petition, the Allahabad High Court has reiterated that government departments stand on the same footing as private litigants and cannot seek automatic or undue benefit of delay condonation merely because of bureaucratic functioning. The Division Bench comprising Justice Neeraj Tiwari and Justice Vivek Kumar Singh categorically held that condonation of delay is an exception, not a right, and the State cannot presume it as an anticipated advantage.
Court’s Observations on Government Accountability
The Bench observed:
“The government agencies are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the Government Departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of the Government Department.”
The Court emphasised that law does not recognise two different standards one for private parties and another for the State when it comes to limitation and procedural discipline.
Background of the Case:- The State of Uttar Pradesh filed a Review Petition challenging a judgment dated 13.11.2009 passed under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. To justify the enormous delay of 5,743 days, the State contended that: A Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed before the Supreme Court, The SLP itself was dismissed on 03.05.2024, both on the ground of delay of 1,633 days and on merits, and After dismissal of the SLP, there was an additional delay of about 489 days in filing the Review Petition before the High Court.
Rejection of Bureaucratic Excuses
The High Court found that no sufficient cause had been disclosed for the delay. The explanation offered by the State revolved around: Movement of files and proposals within departments, Communication with government counsel, Collection of records from advocates appearing before the Supreme Court, and
Routine bureaucratic processes.:- The Court was unimpressed and held that such mechanical and stereotyped explanations cannot constitute “sufficient cause” under law.
Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents:- The Bench relied upon a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court, including:
Union of India v. Central Tibetan Schools Administration & Ors.,
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Bherulal,
Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through LRs, and
Majji Sannemma v. Reddy Sridevi, to reiterate that the expression “sufficient cause” cannot be interpreted liberally where negligence, inaction, lack of bona fides, or casual conduct is clearly attributable to the party seeking condonation of delay.
No Special Privilege for the State
The Court further observed:
“It hardly matters whether litigant is a private party or State or Union of India when it comes to condoning the gross delay of several years. The government bodies and their agencies should be vigilant in filing the petition within time. There is no need to accept the usual explanation that the petition was kept pending for several years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process.”
Rejecting the State’s attempt to take shelter behind the slow pace of governmental machinery, the Court held that the conduct of the State reflected a casual and negligent approach towards litigation.
Final Outcome
Holding that the delay was not sufficiently explained, even after dismissal of the SLP by the Supreme Court, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the Review Petition.
Case Details
Case Title: State of U.P. and Another v. Mohan Lal
Case No.: CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. 99 of 2025
- Husband Cannot Evade Maintenance Liability Merely Because Wife Is Educated or Has Parental Support: Supreme Court
Shivaji Rathore 04-Feb-2026 In a significant reaffirmation of women’s right to live with dignity after divorce, the Supreme - Default in Filing Written Statement Does Not Mean Automatic Decree: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Order VIII Rule 10 CPC01-Feb-2026 In a significant ruling reaffirming foundational principles of civil justice, the Supreme Court of India has held
- Allahabad High Court Mandates Prosecution for False FIRs: Police Officers Face Liability for Non-Compliance
Shivaji Rathore 30-01-2026 In a far-reaching and precedent-setting judgment, the Allahabad High Court has issued a strict mandamus - Supreme Court Keeps UGC Promotion of Equity Regulations, 2026 in Abeyance; Revives 2012 FrameworkShivaji Rathore 29-01-2026 The Supreme Court of India on Thursday ordered that the University Grants Commission (Promotion of
- Supreme Court Clarifies Magistrate’s Powers Under Section 175(4) BNSS in Cases Against Public ServantsShivaji Rathore, 28-01-2026 The Supreme Court laid down an authoritative interpretation of Section 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik
- Power of Magistrate to Monitor Investigation and Registration of FIRTACIT LEGAL 21-01-2026 One of the most common grievances faced by complainants in criminal law is the non-registration
- Pre-Cognizance Hearing Not Mandatory in Cheque Dishonour Cases: J&K High Court
Section 223 BNSS Inapplicable to Proceedings under Section 138 NI Act Tacit Legal 20 Jan 2025 In a - Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict on Constitutionality of Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption ActTop Court Divided on Whether Prior Government Approval for Corruption Investigations Is Constitutional Tacit Legal 13-Jan-2026 A two-judge
- Marrying Outside District Does Not Give Automatic Local Residence Benefit in Government Jobs: J&K High Court
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Reaffirms Proof-Based Local Residence in Public Recruitment Shivaji Rathore 12 jan
