The Delhi High Court has rejected an appeal filed by the Delhi Government's Directorate of Education (DoE), ruling that the reasons provided for the delay in filing the appeal were insufficient to justify the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

The Court emphasized that merely obtaining approvals from various officials and briefing the standing counsel were not valid grounds for delay.

Factual Background

Section 5 of the Limitation Act allows for an appeal or application to be accepted even after the prescribed limitation period has passed, provided the applicant can show "sufficient cause" for the delay. The DoE had filed an appeal against a single judge order dated May 20, 2019, which upheld the decision of Ramjas School to increase its school fees for the academic session 2016-2017. The appeal was filed more than two years after the order was passed, which led to the application for condonation of delay.

The DoE’s appeal was submitted after more than two years and three months from the date of the original order, relying on the orders of the Supreme Court in its suo motu case, which allowed the exclusion of time until February 28, 2022, for the purpose of computing the limitation period. The application under Section 5 sought condonation for the remaining 175 days after February 28, 2022.

The reasons provided for the delay included obtaining approval from various DoE officials, reviewing and finalizing the grounds for the appeal, gathering documents and information, briefing the Standing Counsel (Civil) for the GNCTD, and preparing the appeal itself.

The Division Bench of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Saurabh Banerjee stated, “In any event, in our considered view the aforesaid plea taken by the appellant in the said application qua obtaining approvals from various officials of its departments, briefing the learned Standing Counsel (Civil) for GNCTD as also preparing and perusing the appeal paper book cannot be said to be justifiable and treated as “sufficient cause” for the said application under Section 5 of the Act to be allowed. Thus, the same inspire no confidence in us,”

Reasoning

The Court found these explanations vague and insufficient. It noted that the DoE had not provided specific details or timelines regarding the approvals or the process involved, which are essential components for establishing a "sufficient cause" for delay.

The Court emphasized, “This, unfortunately, can prove to be damaging since one of the most essential requirement(s) for a party (like the appellant herein to seek benefit under Section 5 of the Act) is that the appellant is required to make out, show and also establish any “sufficient cause” on account of which the appellant was prevented from and was unable to file the present appeal within the prescribed period of limitation under the statute,”

In this case, the Court found the reasons provided by the DoE to be overly general and lacking in substance.

In dismissing the appeal, the Court clarified that it had not made any judgment on the merits of the case itself. The court made it clear that the issues raised in the appeal were not being addressed, and the matter remained open for future adjudication.

Cause Title: Directorate of Education v. Ramjas School, [2025:DHC:327-DB]

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Udit Malik, ASC (Civil), Rima Rao and Palak Sharma

Respondent: Advocates Kamal Gupta, Sparsh Aggarwal, Yosha Dutt, Rashi Agarwal, Aaditya Dhull

Click here to read/download Judgment