Government bodies must demonstrate diligence and provide satisfactory explanations for delays in court proceedings; bureaucratic delays are not sufficient for condonation.

JUDGMENT :

Battu Devanand, J.

This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order, dated 16.10.2024 passed in W.P.No.3003 of 2020 by the learned Single Judge of this Court.

2. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners/appellants.

3. Originally, an interlocutory application in I.A.No.01 of 2025 is filed seeking condonation of delay of 380 days in filing the present Writ Appeal, along with an accompanying affidavit. The relevant portion of the accompanying affidavit is extracted herein under:

“2. I submit that this Hon’ble Court pronounced the judgment order in W.P.No.3003 of 2020, dated 16.10.2024 and this office received the same officially through Registered post on 08.11.2024. The Respondent/Society has thoroughly examined the matter with reference to relevant rules in force on record. Further, the Respondent/Society has addressed a letter to the Government for necessary directions on implementing the order vide Lr.RC.No.HR-I/2717978/2022, dated 18.02.2025. Further, Government have directed to implement court directions with respect to petitioner in W.P.No.3003 of 2020 and also directed to take legal opinion on implementing the orders with respect to 5^th respondent vide Letter No.2614625/SW(RS)DEPT/2024, dated 25.03.2025. Accordingly, a letter was addressed to Standing Counsel vide Lr.RC.No.HR-I/2717978/2022, dated 27.03.2025 and legal opinion was obtained from the Standing Counsel on 12.09.2025 and after receipt of legal opinion, the Appellant Society has taken decision to file Writ Appeal for questioning the judgment passed in W.P.No.3003 of 2020. Hence, there is a delay of 380 days in presenting the Writ Appeal and the said delay is neither wilfull nor wanton solely stated above reason.”

4. A perusal of those averments, it appears that though they receive the order copy of this Court in W.P.No.3003 of 2020 on 08.11.2024, they sought legal opinion of the Standing Counsel only on 27.03.2025 and as per those averments, it appears that the learned Standing Counsel furnished the legal opinion on 12.09.2025. Exchanging correspondence within the Government or obtaining legal opinion from their legal counsel are internal issues between them. But, the reasons stated for the delay of 380 days are not sufficient to condone the said abnormal delay.

5. The Apex Court and this Court, time and again, declared that the Government officials should be very vigilant and cautious while implementing Court orders or in preferring appeals within the period of limitation. If the delay is for a reasonable period, this Court may understand the difficulties of the officers in filing the appeal and may take a lenient view. However, when the delay is more than one (01) year, the same is not acceptable to this Court, particularly in the absence of any sufficient cause as shown by the petitioners/appellants. 6. At this stage, this Court relies upon the following judgments of the Apex Court while dealing with the petitions filed for condonation of delay.

7. In the case of Office of Chief Post Master General and others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another , 2012 LawSuit (SC) 124 the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with a petition filed for condonation of delay of 427 days after considering various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, observed as extracted hereunder:

“12. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible a