MANPREET KAUR

2026:CGHC:7960-DB Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.02.13

17:32:30 +0530 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 142 of 2026

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

Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 1)

2 - The Additional Principle Chief Conservator Of Forest (Adm/non- Gazzetted) Head Quarter Jail Road Raipur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 2)

3 - The Chief Conservator Of Forest Durg Circle Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 3)

4 - The Divisional Forest Officer Balod, District- Balod Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 4)

... Appellant(s)

versus Mahendra Kumar Thakur S/o Shri Nainsingh Thakur Aged About 41 Years R/o Amora, Post Amora, Thana, Tahsil And District Balod, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No. 1)

... 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

13.02.2026

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 of 183 days.

2. Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/appellant submits that the impugned order dated 02.05.2025 was passed by the learned Single Judge, against which the department initiated steps to prefer a writ appeal before the Division Bench of this Court. Opinion of the Office of the Advocate General was obtained on 11.07.2025, and thereafter the Law & Legislative Affairs Department, Government of Chhattisgarh granted permission on 25.09.2025. Subsequently, the Under Secretary directed filing of the writ appeal and appointed an Officer-in-Charge on 10.10.2025, who, upon receiving the relevant documents, appeared before the Office of the Advocate General on 26.11.2025, whereafter the writ appeal was prepared and filed. It is submitted that the impugned order is a common order disposing of three petitions, and as the aforesaid procedural formalities were required to be completed in respect of all three matters, some delay has occasioned in filing the present writ appeal.

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 a