SATYAVIR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Sharad Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.P. Singh Kachhwah, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner has sufficiently explained the little delay of 12 days in filing the appeal. The respondent No. 2 passed a non-speaking order in a mechanical manner and rejected the delay condonation application without noticing the facts stated in the application. The respondent No. 2 merely observed that 60 days limitation is provided and it is assumed that the petitioner was aware of the order and the reason disclosed for delay in filing the appeal are of general nature and as such the delay is not condonable.

(3.) In my view, the respondent No. 2 has passed the order in a mechanical manner. Each and every day of delay was properly explained by the petitioner in the delay condonation application. The explanation submitted by the petitioner for delay was not found by the respondent No. 2 to be false. The respondent No. 2 rejected the delay condonation application merely by one line observation that 'Cause shown for delay is of general nature'. Such an order rejecting the delay condonation application cannot be sustained.