Condonation Of Delay Not A Matter Of Right, Entirely Court’s Discretion: Supreme Court
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by a State government as time-barred, rejecting applications seeking condonation of delay in filing and re-filing. The Court noted that condonation of delay is not a matter of right and depends entirely on the Court’s discretion. It found that the petition was instituted about four months after the limitation period had expired and declined to accept the explanation based on procedural time taken to obtain approvals from higher authorities. The dispute arose from an order directing release of grant-in-aid to a school’s teaching and non-teaching staff, which the State sought to contest.
The respondent–Managing Committee of a girls’ high school approached the State Education Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, under Section 24B of the Odisha Education Act, 1969 seeking release of grant-in-aid for its teaching and non-teaching staff. By order dated 30 December 2013, the Tribunal directed the State and the Director of Secondary Education to release grant-in-aid in favour of the staff in the manner indicated.
The State preferred an appeal before the High Court. The appeal was filed beyond limitation and was not accompanied by the certified copy of the Tribunal’s order. For nearly eight years, the certified copy was not filed. The High Court dismissed the appeal for failure to file the certified copy. Thereafter, the State obtained the certified copy and filed an application seeking recall of the dismissal order along with an application for condonation of delay. The High Court rejected the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the recall application as time-barred.
The State then filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court with delay in filing and re-filing. In its application for condonation of delay, the State attributed the delay to procedural requirements and approval processes.
The Court recorded, “We recalled the order dismissing the special leave petition as withdrawn and, instead, dismissed the same as time-barred considering paragraphs 3 and 4 of the application for condonation of delay, excerpted above, with the observation that reasons would follow.”
On the explanation offered for delay, the Court noted: “That the delay in filing the appeal was on account of procedural delay in obtaining approval from the higher authority. The delay caused is not deliberate and intentional.” It then stated, “No cause, much less sufficient cause, has been shown for exercise of discretion in favour of the State of Odisha.”
While referring the earlier approach in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst Katiji, the Court recorded, “a justice oriented approach is indeed called for when a ‘State’ seeks condonation of delay as distinguished from ‘a private party’.” Referring to G. Ramegowda v. Land Acquisition Officer, the order quoted: “When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay … It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.” It also recorded: “Governmental decisions are proverbially slow encumbered, as they are, by a considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process of their making.”
The Court then recorded a change in approach, stating, “Katiji (supra) and Ramegowda (supra) were consistently followed by this Court until adoption of a different and seemingly strict approach while dealing with applications for condonation of delay during the last decade and a half became discernible starting with the decision in Postmaster General v. Living Media India Limited, where a delay of 427 days in filing the relevant special leave petition was not condoned.”
It added, “University of Delhi v. Union of India is another decision (of a three-Judge Bench of this Court) where delay of 916 days was not condoned.” In Pathapati Subba Reddy v. Collector (LA), it recorded: “the law of limitation is founded on public policy, the object is that a legal remedy is put to an end so that no litigation remains pending for an indefinite period.” It also noted Sheo Raj Singh v. Union of India, stating, “a distinction ought to be drawn between an ‘explanation’ and an ‘excuse’ that is proffered as cause for condonation of delay.”
Quoting Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Bombay v. Amateur Riders Club, Bombay, the Court recorded: “There is a point beyond which even the courts cannot help a litigant even if the litigant is Government which is itself under the shackles of bureaucratic indifference.” It then stated, “We have found the State of Odisha to be utterly lethargic, tardy and indolent not only before the High Court but also before this Court.” Further, “this Court has been approached by the State of Odisha four months after expiry of the period of limitation.”
Finally, the Court stated, “Condonation of delay cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is entirely the discretion of the Court whether or not to condone delay
Assessing the conduct of the State, the Court observed, “We have found the State of Odisha to be utterly lethargic, tardy and indolent not only before the High Court but also before this Court.” It further recorded, “Condonation of delay cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is entirely the discretion of the Court whether or not to condone delay.”
The Bench concluded that “the cause sought to be shown here by the State of Odisha is not an explanation but a lame excuse. No case for exercise of discretion has been set up.”
The Court directed that “The applications for condonation of delay in filing the special leave petition and condonation of delay in re-filing the same, thus, stand rejected, with the result that the special leave petition stands dismissed as time-barred.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Ms. Sanjana Saddy, AOR Ms. Shailja Singh, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Nagendra Kasana, AOR Mr. Mahendra Kumar Sahoo, Adv. Mr. A Deb Kumar, Adv. Mrs. A Deepa, Adv. Mrs. Neeta Kasana, Adv. Mrs. Anjana Kasana, Adv. Mr. Binod Ch Sabat, Adv.
Case Title: State of Odisha & Ors. v. Managing Committee of Namatara Girls High School
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 148
Case Number: Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 54941/2025
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
