The court emphasized that administrative inaction does not justify delay in legal proceedings, and that adequate cause must be shown, especially by State authorities.

ORDER :

MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ.

In support of the prayer in CMP No.23122 of 2025 seeking condonation of delay of 258 days, all that has been stated in the affidavits is as below:

“3. It is submitted that there is a delay of 258 days in filing the Writ Appeal against the Impugned Order, dated 20.9.2024 passed in W.P.No.28214/2021. It is submitted that we had to obtain Departmental Sanction to file the Writ Appeal. It is further submitted that the Ministry of Law had originally appointed a Senior Panel Counsel, who had subsequently could not file as his term was not extended by the Central Government. Thereafter, the Present Counsel has been nominated by the Ministry of Law, Chennai Branch Secretariat.

4. It is submitted that due to the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Appeal could not be filed within time and a delay of 258 days has arisen. It is submitted that the delay in filing the Writ Appeal is neither wilful nor wanton, but due to the aforesaid unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the petitioners/appellants and it is therefore just and necessary to condone the delay of 258 days in filing the present Writ Appeal against the Impugned Order, dated 20.9.2024 passed in W.P.No.28214/2021.”

Similar reason is assigned in CMP No.23131 of 2025 filed to condone the delay in filing the appeal in W.A.No.SR 125419 of 2025.

2. To say the least, no cause, much less sufficient cause, has been shown. It appears that the officials concerned dealing with the files were completely indolent and sat over the matter without doing anything.

3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in umpteen number of judgments, held that the period of limitation is required to be explained by the State and it does not stand on any exalted position.

(i) In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. V. Bherulal, (2020) 10 SCC 654 it was found that the appeal filed by the State was with delay of 663 days. The cause shown for inordinate delay in that case was due to unavailability of documents and the process of arranging documents and also a reference to bureaucratic process works. In the aforesaid factual context, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, observed as below:

"3. No doubt, some leeway is given for the Government inefficiencies but the sad part is that the authorities keep on relying on judicial pronouncements for a period of time when technology had not advanced and a greater leeway was given to the Government (Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. MANU/SC/0460/1987 : (1987) 2 SCC 107). This position is more than elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. MANU/SC/0132/2012 : (2012) 3 SCC 563 where the Court observed as under:

"27. 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 and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.

28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making s