The court held that administrative delays are insufficient for condoning significant delays in appeals, emphasizing the importance of strict adherence to limitation laws and the necessity for bona fide explanations.

ORDER :

1. The instant intra-court appeal, under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order dated 10.04.2024 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 2914 of 2020 by which the writ petition has been allowed.

I.A. No. 830 of 2025:

2. The instant appeal is admittedly barred by limitation since as per the office note dated 23.01.2025, there is delay of 256 days in preferring the appeal, therefore, an application being I.A. No. 830 of 2025 has been filed for condoning such delay. 3. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the instant intra-court appeal has been filed after inordinate delay of 256 days, deems it fit and proper, to first consider the delay condonation application before going into the legality and propriety of the impugned order on merit.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has submitted that delay in preferring the appeal may be condoned by allowing the Interlocutory Application on the basis of grounds shown therein treating the same to be sufficient.

5. The grounds for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal, as has been mentioned in the interlocutory application is that the impugned order was passed on 10.04.2024 and the file was forwarded to Legal Retainer on 25.06.2024 which was received by him on 05.07.2024 and submitted the grounds of appeal on 05.09.2024.

Then the file was sent for legal opinion through proper channel on 30.09.2024 which was submitted on 01.10.2024 and the file was received in the department on 04.10.2024 and put up before the Secretary of the Department on the same day who marked the file to the Director, Higher Education for further action.

Thereafter, the file was received by Director, Higher Education on 24.10.2024 and then it was sent to the conducting lawyer, who received the same on 18.11.2024.

The conducting lawyer asked for complete file which was provided to him on 13.12.2024 and the memo of appeal was drafted and sent for approval on 16.12.2024 and thereafter the appeal was filed after the approval of the competent authority.

Therefore, the delay of 256 days has occurred in filing the appeal.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants on delay condonation application and before considering the same, this Court, deems it fit and proper to refer certain legal proposition as has been propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court with respect to the approach of the Court in condoning the inordinate delay.

7. There is no dispute about the fact that generally the lis is not to be rejected on the technical ground of limitation but certainly if the filing of appeal suffers from inordinate delay, then the duty of the Court is to consider the application to condone the delay before entering into the merit of the lis.

8. It requires to refer herein that the Law of limitation is enshrined in the legal maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties, rather the idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time, as has been held in the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Brijesh Kumar & Ors. Vrs. State of Haryana & Ors., (2014) 11 SCC 351 .

The Privy Council in General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corpn. Ltd. v. Janmahomed Abdul Rahim , (1939-40) 67 IA 416, relied upon the writings o