Condonation Of Delay Can’t Be Claimed As Matter Of Right Or Anticipated Privilege By Government Entities: Chhattisgarh High Court
The Chhattisgarh High Court emphasised that the law casts its protection equally upon all litigants and cannot be distorted to confer undue advantage upon a select few.
Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, Chhattisgarh High Court
The Chhattisgarh High Court observed that the condonation of delay cannot be claimed as a matter of right or anticipated privilege by the Government entities.
The Court observed thus in a Writ Appeal preferred by the State in which the question for determination was whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 would apply to an application for condonation of delay.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru remarked, “Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the light of aforementioned judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Postmaster General (supra) and Ramkumar Choudhary (supra), it is evident that Government departments are under a special obligation to discharge their duties with due diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception, not the rule, and cannot be claimed as a matter of right or anticipated privilege by Government entities.”
The Bench added that the law casts its protection equally upon all litigants and cannot be distorted to confer undue advantage upon a select few.
Dy. A.G. Shashank Thakur appeared for the Appellant, while Advocate Sandeep Dubey appeared for the Respondent.
Factual Background
It was submitted on behalf of the Appellant-State that the Single Judge passed an Order and thereafter, the department initiated proceeding to file Writ Appeal against the same before the Division Bench. Department of Law & Legislative Affairs Department, Government of C.G. had granted sanction for filing the Appeal. The Joint Director, Social Welfare, Bilaspur was the Officer-in-Charge of the case and the relevant documents were received by the concerned Officer-in-Charge. Subsequently, the process for filing the Appeal was initiated by the Officer-in-Charge and Appeal was prepared and filed before the High Court.
It was contended that the State obtained necessary documents and information with respect to the case, however, some delay occurred due to fulfillment of various departmental formalities and working of the Government machinery because the State Government is a multi-functioning body, hence, at times the fulfillment of departmental formalities takes unexpected long time. Therefore, in some cases the State is prevented from filing the case within the prescribed period of limitation, which is bonafide and not deliberate. Hence, the Appeal was filed after a delay of 107 days from the prescribed period of limitation. It was prayed that such delay may be condoned.
Reasoning
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, noted, “Very recently on 12.09.2025, the Supreme Court in the matter of Shivamma (dead) by LRS Vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors., 2025 INSC 1104 categorically held that the High Courts ought not give a legitimizing effect to such callous attitude of State authorities or its instrumentalities, and should remain extra cautious, if the party seeking condonation of delay is a State authority. They should not become surrogates for State laxity and lethargy. The constitutional courts ought to be cognizant of the apathy and pangs of a private litigant.”
The Court was of the view that the State has failed to provide any proper or satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the Appeal. It said that the only reason cited is that the Law & Legislative Affairs Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, had forwarded a proposal to the Office of the Advocate General for initiating an Appeal against the impugned Order, and thereafter, the case was processed, and the Petition was ultimately filed.
“However, this sequence of events, lacking in specificity or justifiable cause, does not amount to a cogent or acceptable explanation. Thus, the State has miserably failed to demonstrate sufficient cause warranting the condonation of an inordinate delay of 107 days”, it held.
The Court, therefore, refused to exercise it discretionary power under the law to condone such extraordinary delay.
“The learned counsel for the State has not been able to establish any convincing or bona fide reason for the delay. Therefore, there is no justification for condoning the delay of 107 days in filing the writ appeal”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court rejected the Writ Appeal on the ground of delay and laches.
Cause Title- State of Chhattisgarh v. Mangala Sharma (Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:53762-DB)
