Scribd
Upload
458 views4 pages

Reply to Delay Condonation Petition

Uploaded by

Sunil Thakur
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
458 views4 pages

Reply to Delay Condonation Petition

Uploaded by

Sunil Thakur
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

I.A. NO. OF 2019

IN

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. OF 2019

IN THE MATTER OF:-

State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. PETITIONERS

VERSUS

Dr. [Link] & Ors. RESPONDENTS

REPLY TO THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY

I, Dr Vidhya Sagar Sharma s/o Sh. Brita Ram Sharma aged about 66

years, r/o H No. 92, Lane No.6, Buta Nagar, Paloura, Jammu, J&K do

hereby solemnly affirm and state as under;

A. That I am the Respondent no.77 in the above petition and am

conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present case

and competent to affirm the following affidavit. I have read the

contents of the accompanying petition and I say that save and

except what is expressly admitted herein, the contents of the

petition are denied.

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:

A. The present special leave petition filed by the petitioners/State

deserves to be dismissed in as much as the petitioners/State has

on oath made false and misleading averments in support of its

application for condonation of delay. It is respectfully submitted

that pursuant to the passing of the impugned judgment the

Finance Department of the State had given concurrence for

implementation of the court judgment in the matter. Thereafter,

the matter was taken up with the Law Department which advised
that there was no grounds for filing SLP in the matter. Pursuant

to the same, the Competent Authority accorded sanction for

implementation of the judgment. In terms thereof, the

Animal/Sheep Husbandry Department issued GO no. 27-ASH of

2019 dated 18.02.2019 whereby the judgment stands

implemented. However, the Animal/Sheep Husbandry

Department has contrary to the opinion of the Law Department

proceeded to file the present petition. A copy of the said GO no.

27-ASH of 2019 dated 18.02.2019 is annexed and marked

Annexure R-1(page no.

B. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioners/State is guilty of

perjury by stating that the Law Department on 06.02.2019

opined to file the present special leave petition, whereas the Law

Department has in fact, opined to the contrary. Further, the

petitioners/State is guilty of suppressing the fact that the

judgment of the Hon’ble High Court has been implemented with

the concurrence of Finance Department, Law Department and

the Competent Authority.

C. That the present application seeking condonation of delay also

deserves to be dismissed in as much as the same does not

disclose sufficient grounds for condoning the inordinate delay of

375 days. It is respectfully submitted that the delay occasioned

by pursuing procedural formalities cannot and/or does not

constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay as per law.

D. That the present special leave is a clear case of abuse of the

process of law in as much as it is filed only to deny the benefits

to the respondents who are the retired personnel of the

Animal/Sheep Husbandry Department.


REPLY ON MERITS:

1. The contents of paragraph 1 are admitted. It is however

submitted that the present Special Leave Petition has been filed

without sanction and is an abuse of the process of law.

2. The contents of paragraph 2 are denied and Petitioners are put

to strict proof thereof. In this context it is stated that the

Petitioners have deliberately and knowingly stated false facts in

support of their application for condonation of delay. It is

respectfully submitted that pursuant to the passing of the

impugned judgment the Finance Department of the State had

given concurrence for implementation of the court judgment in

the matter. Thereafter, the matter was taken up with the Law

Department which advised that there was no grounds for filing

SLP in the matter. Pursuant to the same, the Competent

Authority accorded sanction for implementation of the judgment.

In terms thereof, the Animal/Sheep Husbandry & Fisheries

Department issued GO no. 27-ASH of 2019 dated 18.02.2019

whereby the judgment stands implemented. However, the

Animal/Sheep Husbandry & Fisheries Department has contrary to

the opinion of the Law Department proceeded to file the present

petition.

3. The contents of paragraph 3 are denied.

In the premises it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

Court may be pleased to dismiss the present application seeking

condonation of delay.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:

Verified at Jammu on this day of August, 2019 that the contents of

the above affidavit are true and correct as per records, that no part of

the same is false and nothing material has been concealed there from.

DEPONENT

Common questions

Powered by AI

The respondents provide evidence of abuse of process by pointing out that the petitioners deliberately stated false facts and omitted critical information regarding the opinions of relevant state departments. Specifically, the Law Department had advised not to file the SLP, and the judgment had already been implemented according to the Finance Department and Competent Authority's concurrence, yet the petitioners proceeded with filing the petition contrary to these directives .

The respondents consider the special leave petition an 'abuse of the process of law' because it appears to be filed solely to deny the retired personnel their rightful benefits, despite the judgment being implemented following legal advice that there were no grounds for filing such a petition. This action disregards prior legal and authoritative agreements and employs judicial resources unjustifiably .

GO no. 27-ASH of 2019 served as a pivotal piece of evidence in the respondents' arguments, illustrating that the court's judgment had already been implemented with the concurrence of relevant governmental bodies including the Finance Department, Law Department, and the Competent Authority. This government order contradicts the state's assertion of a need to file a special leave petition, thereby underpinning the respondents' claim of abuse of process and assertive perjury by the petitioners .

The respondents allege that the procedural error made by the petitioners was neglecting to follow the opinion from the Law Department, which had advised against filing the special leave petition. Furthermore, they failed to consider the prior implementation of the judgment as sanctioned by the Competent Authority and the Finance Department, thereby rendering the SLP pursuit baseless and inaccurately justified .

The respondents verified their claims by submitting an affidavit affirming the truthfulness of their statements based on official records and documents related to the case. The affidavit was verified at Jammu, ensuring that no material fact was concealed or misstated, thus providing a formal and verifiable account for the court's consideration .

The respondents argue that the petition should be dismissed because the petitioners have made false and misleading statements to support their application for condonation of delay. The Law Department had advised against filing the special leave petition, and concurrence for implementing the judgment had already been given by the Finance Department and the Competent Authority. The petition is considered an abuse of the process of law, filed only to deny benefits to the respondents, who are retired personnel of the Animal/Sheep Husbandry Department .

According to the respondents, the opinions of the Finance Department and the Law Department hold legal significance as they both provided necessary concurrence for implementing the court's judgment, obviating any need for further legal contestation through a special leave petition. These opinions reflect authoritative consent and cooperation with judicial directives, reinforcing compliance with the rule of law and proper administrative procedure .

According to the respondents, the procedural actions taken by the petitioners contributed to the delay because they pursued the petition despite knowing that necessary and proper consents had been given to implement the court's judgment. The delay of 375 days cannot be justified by following mere procedural formalities which do not constitute a sufficient cause for condoning the delay .

The respondents claim the petitioners committed perjury by falsely asserting that the Law Department advised filing the special leave petition when, in fact, the department opined the opposite. This misrepresentation is claimed to be a deliberate act to mislead the court and constitutes an illegal action by suppressing critical facts regarding the implementation of the High Court's judgment .

The respondents challenge the application for condonation of delay by arguing that the petitioners have not disclosed sufficient grounds for why the delay of 375 days should be excused. They assert that merely following procedural formalities does not justify such a delay, particularly when critical decisions validating the judgment's implementation had already been made by state authorities. The lack of timely pursuit reflects a frivolous and unwarranted use of judicial resources .

You might also like