2026:CGHC:2376-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 13 of 2026

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Town Administration, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, C.G.

... Appellant versus

1 - Moinuddin Quereshi S/o Shri Sirajuddin Qureshi, Aged About 36 Years, R/o LIG-12 Dawada Colony, Near Pachpedi Naka, Raipur (C.G.)

2 - Municipal Corporation Bhilai Through Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.)

3 - Jaspal Singh Siddhu S/o Not known to the petitioner, R/o Santoshi Para, Baikunth Nagar, Camp-II Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant/State : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Moinuddin Quereshi, respondent No.1 in person.

Digitally signed by Hon'ble Shr i Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.01.16

Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J .

15/01/2026

1. Heard Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General

appearing for the appellant on I.A. No. 02, which is an application for condonation of delay of 228 days in preferring the instant appeal. Also heard Mr. Moinuddin Quereshi, respondent No.1 in person.

2. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against an order dated

24.02.2025, passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, in WPC No. 7913/2011 (Moinuddin Quereshi v. State of Chhattisgarh and others), by which the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner.

3. Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the appellant/

State submits that the present writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State against the order dated 24.02.2025 passed in WPC No. 7913/2011, by the Hon’ble Single Bench of this Court. He would further submit that the State is a multi-functioning body and it has to follow the rules of obtaining sanction etc. for filing an appeal, which took considerable time due to administrative procedures and multiple levels of approval. He also submits that the appellant has a strong case on merits, therefore, the delay if not condoned, would result in grave miscarriage of justice.

4. It has been further contended that the State, after obtaining necessary documents and information with respect to the case, some delay was occurred due to fulfillment of various departmental formalities and working of the Government machinery, because the State Government is a multi functioning body, hence, at times the fulfillment of departmental formalities takes unexpected long time. Therefore, in some cases the State is prevented from filing the case within the prescribed period of limitation, which is bona fide and not deliberate. The instant appeal is, therefore, being filed after a delay of 228 days from the prescribed period of limitation. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and others” (1996) 3 SCC 132, to buttress his submissions. As such, the learned State counsel prays that the delay of 228 days in preferring the appeal may be condoned.

5. Respondent No.1 appearing in person submits that the writ appeal is barred by delay and laches and further there no cogent reason or explanation has been given in the delay and laches application filed for condonation of delay. Hence, the appeal is not liable to be entertained.

6. On a pointed query being made to the learned for the appellant as to why they have approached this Court against the impugned order dated 24.02.2025, after an inordinate delay of 228 days, the appellant has not offered any plausible explanation or any cogent reason for delay in filing the writ appeal.

7. The question for determination before this Court, is whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (i.e. Act 9 of 1908 i.e. the old Limitation Act) would apply to an application for condonation of delay.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Union of India and other