# Chairman, Nagar Panchayat, Bhinga, District Shravasti and another v. Sri Guddu and other - **Citation:** (2011) 1 ILRA 1 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2011-01-13 - **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 17 of 2011 - **Bench:** Ritu Raj Awasthi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chairman-nagar-panchayat-bhinga-district-shravasti-and-another-v-sri-guddu-and-41793 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Code of Civil Procedure-Section 115-Civil Revision-Trail court rejected delay condonation application-as provision of Section 5 of limitation Act not applicable consequently rejected the application for reference under section 33(2) of Muslim waqf Act 1960-held highly hipertechnical-if substantial justice and technicality pitted-court should choose Substantial justice-order set-a-sidedirection for fresh decision given. Held: Para 15 Needless to mention here that in respect to the matter relating to condonation of delay, it is settled proposition of law that liberal consideration shall be given in order to advance the substantial justice. If technical and substantial justice are pitted together, the way should be given to the substantial justice, and there is no need to explain day to day delay in filing an application for condonation of delay. ## Text 1 All] Chairman, Nagar Panchayat, Bhinga, and another V. Sri Guddu and others 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 13.01.2011 BEFORE THE HON'NLE PRADEEP KANT, J. THE HON'BLE RITU RAJ AWASTHI, J. Special Appeal No. 17 of 2011 Chairman, Nagar Panchayat, Bhinga, District Shravasti and another ...Petitioner Versus Sri Guddu and other ...Respondent High Court Rules-Chapter VIII Rule 5Special Appeal-Single judge- set-a-side the order of dismissal passed-without holding disciplinary enquiry-on disproportionate excessive punishmentonce the authorities did not choose to challenge within-statutory period-can not excave from compliance in garb of time barred appeal-appeal dismissed. Held: Para 9 This Court has repeatedly pronounced that if the authority or any person, for that matter feels aggrieved by the orders of the Court, he has no option but to comply with the same, unless he challenges the said order in any superior forum and gets an interim order of stay against the said order. Authorities who are responsible and obliged to comply with the orders passed by the Court with all promptness, cannot save themselves by adopting delaying tactics and by approaching the Court by filing the special appeal when contempt proceedings are drawn. (Delivered by Hon'ble Pradeep Kant, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants Sri O.P. Srivastava and Sri A.N. Srivastava for the respondents. 2. This special appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 11.11.09 has been filed with delay of more than one year. Since the counsel for the respondents has no objection, we condone the delay. 3. This special appeal challenges the order passed by the learned Single Judge, allowing the writ petition and setting aside the order of punishment of dismissal from service, with consequential benefits. The respondents' father, who was a regular employee, while working as Sweeper at Nagar Panchayat, Bhinga, Shravasti was dismissed from service on certain charges. 4. The learned Single Judge found that the enquiry was not conducted at all and merely on the basis of the reply submitted, punishment of dismissal from service was awarded. He held that the punishment order was passed without holding any enquiry in accordance with law. The learned Single Judge also found that the punishment of dismissal from service was highly disproportionate and excessive to the charge leveled. 5. With the aforesaid finding, the writ petition was allowed, but finding that the respondents' father had already expired, the learned Single Judge provided that the consequential benefits be provided to his heirs with no further enquiry. 6. The appellants did not challenge the aforesaid order within limitation knowing fully well, the date of the order and the contents thereof, but it appears that when the contempt petition was filed for compliance of the order aforesaid, as 2 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011 an afterthought, the present special appeal has been filed, after more than one year. 7. The tendency of the State Government, government departments, local bodies and authorities etc., not to comply with the order till the contempt petition is filed and notices are issued, even without filing any special appeal or challenging the order passed in the writ petition is spreading like an epidemic. 8. This Court takes notice of the said fact in the context of a litigant who comes to the Court, even after getting an order in his favour from the highest Court of the State, is not allowed to take the benefit of the same by such deliberate delaying tactics in complying with the Court's order by the authority concerned. 9. This Court has repeatedly pronounced that if the authority or any person, for that matter feels aggrieved by the orders of the Court, he has no option but to comply with the same, unless he challenges the said order in any superior forum and gets an interim order of stay against the said order. Authorities who are responsible and obliged to comply with the orders passed by the Court with all promptness, cannot save themselves by adopting delaying tactics and by approaching the Court by filing the special appeal when contempt proceedings are drawn. 10. Apart from this, instant is a case where no illegality could be pointed out or can be pointed out in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 11. That being so, there was in fact, no occasion for the appellants to file the special appeal. 12. We, therefore, do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 13. The special appeal is dismissed. --------- REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 06.01.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR, J. Civil Revision No. 18 of 1988 Habib Ahmad Khan ...Petitioner Versus The U.P. Sunni Central of Waqfs and others ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: M.A. Khan Counsel for the Respondent: Z. Zilani Code of Civil Procedure-Section 115-Civil Revision-Trail court rejected delay condonation application-as provision of Section 5 of limitation Act not applicable consequently rejected the application for reference under section 33(2) of Muslim waqf Act 1960-held highly hipertechnical-if substantial justice and technicality pitted-court should choose Substantial justice-order set-a-sidedirection for fresh decision given. Held: Para 15 Needless to mention here that in respect to the matter relating to condonation of delay, it is settled proposition of law that liberal consideration shall be given in order to advance the substantial justice. If technical and substantial justice are pitted together, the way should be given to the substantial justice, and there is no need to explain day to day delay in filing an application for condonation of delay.