State authorities must provide sufficient cause for condonation of delay; administrative delays are not adequate justification.

JUDGMENT :

MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ.

In support of the prayer seeking condonation of delay of 1226 days, all that has been stated in the affidavit is as below:

“14. I humbly submit that the Respondent herein gave the representation dated 29.12.2023 that the Patta should be given to him and pursuant to such representation. There is also an order passed in W.P.No.10293 of 2015 dated 18.08.2022 for complying with the above order files could not be traced. After the representation of the respondent dated 29.12.2023, a search was made and some files from the old cases were traced from the said file reveals what is stated earlier about the suppression and dismissal of the earlier Writ Petitions after tracing of the file in view of the revelations, it is decided not to follow the opinion given on 10.10.2022 and so it is decided to get a new opinion and opinion was got on 14.08.2025 and after that immediately the present appeal is filed.

15. I humbly submit that immediately thereafter the opinion was obtained on 14.08.2025 for preparing the present appeal. The present appeal is filed. The officials were also transferred. Now there is a delay of 1226 days in filing the Writ Appeal. The delay is neither wilful nor wanton, but due to the above said reasons. In this case, the respondent has not approached this Hon’ble Court with clean hands and he has suppressed the earlier orders and the Writ Petitions filed by his predecessors in title viz. M/s.VGP Housing Pvt. Ltd. The Respondent is reagitating his same claim and the earlier finding has got a bearing in W.P.No.6404 of 20215 and so the merit of the case has to be gone into suppression of fact is manifest and hence the Respondent is not entitled for any relief.”

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