2026:CGHC:7230-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 129 of 2026

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Urban Administration and Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2. The Director Directorate of Urban Administration Department Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

... Appellant(s)

versus

1. Pramod Kumar Mishra S/o Late Shri Yadunandan Prasad Mishra Aged About 64 Years Occupation Retired Government Servant, R/o H I G-I, B-33, Abhilasha Parisar, Tifra Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

2. Chief Municipal Officer Municipal Council, Pathalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.)

...Respondent(s)

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellants : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General.

D si i g g n it e a d l l b y y For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Prabhat Saxena, Advocate.

BRIJMOHAN

BRIJMOHAN MORLE

MORLE Date:

2026.02.10

+0530

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

10 .02.2026

1. Heard Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/Appellants, as well as Mr. Prabhat Saxena, learned counsel, appearing appearing for respondent No. 1, on I.A.

No.2 of 2026, which is an application for condonation of delay.

2. Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/Appellants submits that the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order on 18.03.2025 in WPS No. 5794 of 2022. Thereafter, Appellant No. 1/State sought opinion from the Office of the Advocate General vide letter dated 18.07.2025. Pursuant thereto, the Office of the Advocate General, vide its letter dated 17-18.11.2025, accorded opinion for filing the appeal. Subsequently, a proposal was forwarded to the Law and Legislative Affairs Department through the Urban Administration and Development Department for grant of sanction, which was processed in the month of August, and accordingly, sanction for filing the appeal was granted on 28.11.2025. Thereafter, the Officer-in- Charge (OIC) was appointed by the Urban Administration and Development Department vide order dated 05.12.2025, and the present appeal has thereafter been 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, faced delay due to compliance with various departmental formalities and the functioning of Government machinery, as the State Government is a multi-functional body and, at times, completion of departmental formalities takes unexpectedly long time. Therefore, in certain cases, the State is prevented from filing proceedings within the prescribed period of limitation, which is bona fide and not deliberate. The instant appeal has, therefore, been filed with a delay of 246 days beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Nagaland vs. Lipok Ao, reported in (2005) 3 SCC 372, in support of the submissions. Accordingly, learned State counsel prays that the delay of 246 days in preferring the appeal may be condoned.

4. It is further submitted by learned State counsel that Respondent No. 1/Writ Petitioner had also preferred Writ Appeal No. 400 of 2025, which came to be dismissed by this Court on 30.06.2025.

5. 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.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Postmaster General and others v. Living Media India Limited and another, reported in (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 u