Govt ‘Not Privileged’ For Condonation Of Delay; Chhattisgarh High Court Dismisses State’s Appeal In Service Matter, Says Law Of Limitation Applies Equally To All
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Chhattisgarh, Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru dismissed the State’s writ appeal, refusing to condone a delay of 107 days in its filing. The Court observed that condonation of delay is not a rule but an exception, which cannot be claimed as a matter of right or anticipated privilege by Government bodies, on whom the law of limitation applies equally. The appeal concerned a dispute between the State and a retired officer of the Social Welfare Department regarding an earlier order that the State sought to challenge. Finding no sufficient or bona fide reason for the delay, the Bench held that procedural formalities could not justify inaction and rejected the appeal on grounds of delay and laches
The matter concerns an application filed by the State of Chhattisgarh seeking condonation of a 107-day delay in preferring a writ appeal against an order dated 23.04.2025 passed by the Single Judge. After the impugned order, the department began proceedings to obtain sanction for filing the appeal. The approval was issued on 11.09.2025 by the Law & Legislative Affairs Department, and on 12.09.2025, the Joint Director, Social Welfare, Bilaspur, was designated as the Officer-in-Charge to coordinate the appeal. The State submitted that the relevant documents were collected, and the filing process was thereafter completed before the Division Bench.
The State contended that the delay occurred because of departmental formalities associated with the functioning of a multifaceted government machinery. It asserted that the delay was unintentional and resulted from the time taken to obtain documents and process the matter. The State relied on State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani (1996) 3 SCC 132 to argue that government action is often delayed due to institutional procedures.
The issue before the Court was whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, could be invoked for condonation of delay in the circumstances presented. The State offered a chronological account of administrative steps taken after the impugned order, asserting that these steps constituted sufficient cause for the delay.
No additional evidence, factual disputes, or statutory provisions beyond the Limitation Act were placed on record. The case proceeded on the basis of explanations offered by the State, the judicial precedents cited, and the question of whether the reasons furnished constituted sufficient grounds to condone the delay.
The Court Held: “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 law casts its protection equally upon all litigants and cannot be distorted to confer undue advantage upon a select few.”
While reviewing precedent, the Bench quoted the Supreme Court’s statement in Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd. as follows: “They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings.” It further quoted: “Why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.”
The Bench noted the Supreme Court’s observation that “the claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted.” It also recorded the conclusion: “The Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay.”
The judgment reproduced the Supreme Court’s view from State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary, stating: “The expression ‘sufficient cause’ cannot be liberally interpreted, if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party.” The Court also noted the Supreme Court’s position that “delay should not be excused as a matter of generosity” and that “rendering substantial justice is not to cause prejudice to the opposite party.”
The Bench stated another quoted passage: “The length of the delay is a relevant matter… Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay.” It noted the observation regarding the requirement that sufficient cause must be linked to events occurring within the prescribed limitation period: “What events occurred after the 91st day… is of no consequence. The limitation… must be traced to a cause arising within the period of limitation.”
The Court also referred to the recent judgment in Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board, quoting that High Courts should not “give a legitimizing effect to such callous attitude of State authorities” and should “remain extra cautious, if the party seeking condonation of delay is a State-authority.”
The Bench recorded: “This sequence of events, lacking in specificity or justifiable cause, does not amount to a cogent or acceptable explanation.” It found that the State had “miserably failed” to show sufficient cause.
The Court recorded that the State’s explanation “does not amount to a cogent or acceptable explanation.” It held that “there is no justification for condoning the delay of 107 days in filing the writ appeal.”
It stated that the Bench was “not inclined to exercise our discretionary power under the law to condone such extraordinary delay. The writ appeal is hereby rejected on the ground of delay and laches.” The rejection was based on the State’s failure to establish “any convincing or bona fide reason for the delay.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant/State: Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate
Case Title: State of Chhattisgarh v. Mangala Sharma
Neutral Citation: 2025: CGHC:53762-DB
Case Number: WA No. 796 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
