I.A. No. 7278 of 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This is an interlocutory application seeking condonation of delay of 742 days in filing the appeal against the learned Single Judge’s Judgment and Order dated 22.09.2022 in W.P.(S) No.6097 of 2016.

3. The learned Single Judge’s order dated 22.09.2022 is a common order in Writ Petition (S) Nos.5254 of 2016, 6097 of 2016, 6129 of 2016 and 6113 of 2016.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that LPAs were filed against this very common order in the context of the remaining three writ petitions after a delay of more than 700 days. The condonation delay applications therein were, however, dismissed by this Court. Learned counsel for the respondents placed on record an order dated 12.06.2025 disposing of I.A. No.7082 of 2025 in L.P.A. (Filing) No.11026 of 2024.

5. Therefore, by adopting the reasoning in the order dated 12.06.2025, even this interlocutory application will have to be dismissed.

6. In any event, we find that the delay in this interlocutory application is not properly explained and does not constitute sufficient cause.

7. The reasons given in the application are routine and concern the movement of files from one table or authority to another. These reasons hardly inspire any confidence.

8. Besides, the learned counsel for the respondents points out that the respondents were forced to file a contempt petition because the present appellants, without any reason, refused to comply with the learned Single Judge’s order dated 22.09.2022.

9. Several adjournments were sought in the contempt petition, and finally, an assurance of compliance was given. Based upon such assurance, the contempt petition was disposed of.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, points out that after disposal of the contempt petition and contrary to the assurance given before the learned Single Judge, the order of 22nd September, 2022 was still not complied with, forcing the original petition to file yet another contempt petition. It is at this stage that the present appeal was filed with a delay of 742 of days.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed on record orders that support his above submissions. He submitted that the delay is not at all explained, and the explanation lacks bona fides.

                  Since the above submissions are supported by records, we are inclined to accept them. This is a case where the delay has not been explained and does not constitute sufficient cause. Besides, there is no bona fide in seeking condonation of such inordinate delay. The over-two-year delay was only to harass the respondents by forcing them to file two contempt petitions. Despite assurances of compliance, there were defaults, after which this appeal was filed after an inordinate delay.

12. Accordingly, we dismiss this application with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- payable within four weeks from today to the respondents in equal proportion, i.e. Rs 2500 each.

13. We expect that the respondents are not forced to file yet another contempt action to recover this cost.

14. As a result of the dismissal of the interlocutory application being I.A. No.7278 of 2025, the present appeal is disposed of.

15. Interlocutory application and the appeal are thus disposed of with costs.

16. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.