Supreme Court – Daily Orders
The Samajwadi Party vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 16 June, 2025
1
ITEM NO.47 COURT NO.12 SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)……………………….. Diary No. 7440/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 01-12-2020
in WC No. 19744/2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad]
THE SAMAJWADI PARTY PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
[IA No. 144964/2025 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING; IA No.
144967/2025 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE
DEFECTS; IA No. 144965/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT; IA No. 144966/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.;
IA No. 145203/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.; IA No. 144962/2025
- PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES; IA No.
145202/2025 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES and IA No. 144963/2025 - PERMISSION TO
FILE PETITION (SLP/TP/WP/..)]
Date : 16-06-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE
[PARTIAL COURT WORKING DAYS BENCH]
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv.
M/S. Lawfic, AOR
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. The application seeking permission to file
Signature Not Verified
the special leave petition is allowed.
Digitally signed by
KAPIL TANDON
Date: 2025.06.18
14:19:15 IST
Reason: 2. Heard learned senior counsel for the
petitioner.
3. The special leave petition suffers from
2
gross delay of 988 days. In addition thereto, it is
clear that the writ petition wherein the impugned
order was passed by the High Court was by one
‘Anand Singh Yadav’(Proforma respondent No.5)
claiming to be the President of the petitioner-
Party. However, the petitioner-Party alienates
itself from the said petition. The writ petition
before the High Court was withdrawn by the
aforesaid writ petitioner (respondent No.5). The
High Court categorically denied liberty for filing
of a fresh writ petition to the writ petitioner
therein on the same cause of action.
4. Hence, we are of the firm view that the
aforesaid order cannot be treated to be prejudicial
to the rights of the petitioner party which is at
liberty to avail of suitable remedy to ventilate
its grievances before the appropriate forum
including the High Court.
5. With the aforesaid observations, the special
leave petition is dismissed as being devoid of
merit.
6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(SNEHA DAS) (SAPNA BANSAL) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)