2026:CGHC:3484-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 39 of 2026

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District-

MANPREET KAUR Raipur, Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by MANPREET K D A at U e R : 2026.01.22 2 - The Additional Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest (Adm/non-

10:51:52 +0530 Gazzated) Head Quarter Jail Road Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3 - The Cheif Conservator Of Forest Durg Circle Durg, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh

4 - The Divisional Forest Officer Rajnandgaon District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

... Appellant(s)

versus

1 - Prashant Rangari S/o Late Shri Babulal Rangari Aged About 45 Years Chowkidar (Collectorate Rate) Ward No. 12, Station Para Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

2 - Bhojraj S/o Shri Siyaram Sinha Aged About 41 Years Chowkidar (Colletorate Rate) Shankarpur Ward No. 10, Goura Chowk Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

3 - Poshan Kumar Verma S/o Shri Satruhan Verma Aged About 30 Years Chowkidar (Collectorate Rate) Motipur Ward No. 03 Ajad Chowk Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

21.01.2026

1. Heard Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant/State on I.A. No.01 of 2026, which is an application for condonation of delay.

2. Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/appellant submits that the learned Single Judge on 02.05.2025 passed the impugned order. Thereafter, the State Department had sought an opinion from the Office of the Advocate General. Upon which the Office of the Advocate General vide its letter dated 28.08.2025 has accorded opinion for filing appeal and thereafter proposal has been sent to the Law and Legislative Affairs Department for sanction and accordingly the sanction for filing appeal has been accorded on 22.02.2025 and thereafter OIC is appointed and the present appeal is being drafted and filed before this Hon'ble Court.

3. It has been contended that the State, after obtaining necessary documents and information with respect to the case, however, 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 bonafide and not deliberate. The instant appeal is, therefore, being filed after a delay of 183 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 Nagaland Vs. LipokAo [(2005) 3 SCC Page 372], to buttress his submissions. As such, the learned State counsel prays that the delay of 183 days in preferring the petition may be condoned.

4. 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.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Postmaster General and others v. Living Media India Limited and another, (2012) 3 SCC 563, has dealt with the limitation issue and held 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