##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:5897-DB

Digitally

signed by NAFR

ALOK

ALOK SHARMA

SHARMA Date:

2026.02.03

17:58:22

+0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WA No. 94 of 2026

1 - Nand Kishore Yadav S/o Gangaram Yadav Aged About 52 Years R/o

Village Basiya, P.S. Sirgitti District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest

Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Civil/ Revenue District

Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 - Chief Conservator Of Forest Aranya Bhawan, Medical College Road,

Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3 - Divisional Forest Officer Forest Division Bilaspur District Bilaspur,

Chhattisgarh

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G. S. Ahluwalia, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Dy. Advocate General.

Hon'ble Shr i Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J .

03/02/2026

1. Heard Mr. G. S. Ahluwalia, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant as well as Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Dy. Advocate

2

General, on I.A. No. 1, which is an application for condonation of

delay of 302 days in preferring the instant appeal.

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

17.01.2025, passed by learned Single Judge, in WPS No. 407 of

2016 & order dated 28.11.2025 passed in Revp No. 22 of 2025

(Nand Kishore Yadav vs. State of CG & Others), by which the

learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the

writ appellant.

3. On a pointed query being made to the learned counsel for the

appellant as to why he has approached this Court against the

impugned order dated 17.01.2025 & 28.11.2025, after an

inordinate delay of 302 days, he has not offered any plausible

explanation or any cogent reason for delay in filing the writ

appeal.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents submit

that the writ appeal is barred by delay and laches and further

there is 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.

5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties as also

perused the application for condonation of delay in preferring the

instant writ appeal.

6. The primary question that arises for consideration before this

Court is whether the delay of about 302 days in preferring the

3

present writ appeal deserves to be condoned or not.

7. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “State of

Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary” 2024 INSC 932,

while considering the delay, issued some directions and observed

as follows:-

“5. The legal position is that where a case

has been presented in the Court beyond

limitation, the petitioner has to explain the

Court as to what was the "sufficient cause"

which means an adequate and enough

reason which prevented him to approach

the Court within limitation. In Majji

Sannemma v. Reddy Sridevi, 2021 SCC

Online SC 1260, it was held by this Court

that even though limitation may harshly

affect the rights of a party, it has to be

applied with all its rigour when prescribed

by statute. A reference was also made to

the decision of this Court in Ajay Dabra v.

Pyare Ram, 2023 SCC Online 92 wherein, it

was held as follows:

"13. This Court in the case of

Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition

Officer [(2013) 14 SCC 81] while

rejecting an application for

condonation of delay for lack of

sufficient cause has concluded in

Paragraph 15 as follows:

“15. The law on the issue can be

summarised to the effect that

4

where a case has been

presented in the court beyond

limitation, the applicant has to

explain the court as to what was

the “sufficient cause” which

means an adequate and enough

reason which prevented him to

approach the court within

limitation. In case a party is

found to be negligent, or for

want of bona fide on his part in

the facts and circumstances of

the case, or found to have not

acted diligently or remained

inactive, there cannot be a

justified ground to condone the

delay. No cour