SUNITA SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Single Judge has rightly held that delay could not condoned. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that delay should not have been condoned on the facts, because by the respondent has signed on the order sheet of the Additional Commissioner and, therefore, he was not justified in saying that he was not aware of the order having been passed. The delay was of three months. The grievance of the learned counsel for the appellant is that learned Single Judge did not give an opportunity to the appellant to submit a photo copy of the order sheet of the Additional commissioner to prove the facts argued by the appellant as mentioned above. This argument cannot be accepted for the simple reason that even if such opportunity had not been given to the appellant by the learned Single, Judge he did have all the opportunity while preparing the present appeal where also he has not filed such photo copy and no reason has been mentioned why it could not be filed in the appeal. Therefore, in such a matter, where a mere three months delay has been condoned, we see no good ground for interfering in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.

(2.) Shri Hitendra Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.

(3.) Petitioner has come before this Court in this writ appeal against the writ petition. The petitioner has remained posted in Satna since 1999. After 12 years of posting in one district, when the petitioner was transferred, he sought stay of the transfer or quashing of the transfer order before the learned Single Judge who has refused the same however certain directions have been issued by him.