Mere Processing Of Matter Through Various Authorities No Cause For Delay Condonation; State Can’t Be Treated As Privileged Litigant: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court was considering an appeal filed by the State under Section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.
Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, Justice Anuradha Shukla, Madhya Pradesh HC
While dismissing an appeal filed by the State, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that mere processing of the matter through various authorities and obtaining legal permission cannot constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay, and the State cannot be treated as a privileged litigant.
The High Court was considering an appeal filed under Section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, as well as an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 213 days.
The Bench comprising Justice G. S. Ahluwalia and Justice Anuradha Shukla held, “Mere processing of the matter through various authorities and obtaining legal opinion and permission cannot, by itself, constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay. No sufficient reasons have been assigned in the application for condonation of delay. The State cannot be treated as a privileged litigant.”
Govt. Advocate Sohit Mishra represented the appellant/State.
Factual Background
The Inspector General of Police, Gwalior Zone, had directed the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior to take appropriate action in the matter. Thereafter, the Superintendent wrote a letter to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Headquarters, Gwalior. The OIC sent a letter to the office of the Additional Advocate General for obtaining legal opinion, and the same was obtained on February 13, 2026. On February 20, 2026, this opinion was forwarded to the Deputy Superintendent of Police.
On August 3, 2026, permission for filing a writ appeal was granted. The aforesaid permission was received and communicated by the Assistant Inspector General (Law Department), Police Headquarters, Bhopal, to the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior. Thereafter, on September 7, 2026, after collecting the required documents, the same were communicated to the office of the Additional Advocate General. On September 29, 2026, the record of the employee was provided to the concerned Government and the Writ Appeal was filed on October 8, 2026.
Reasoning
The Bench took note of the contention that time was consumed in processing the matter through various authorities and obtaining legal opinion and permission. The Bench stated, “However, no satisfactory explanation has been furnished as to why the matter was not processed with due promptitude and why the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period of limitation.”
The Bench held that mere processing of the matter through various authorities and obtaining legal opinion cannot constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
Holding that no sufficient cause was shown for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal, the Bench rejected the application and dismissed the writ appeal as barred by limitation.
Cause Title: The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rakesh Singh Jadon and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-GWL:31633)