2026:CGHC:2666-DB Digitally signed by ALOK ALOK SHARMA SHARMA D 20 a 2 te 6 : .01.19 NAFR

11:44:57 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 14 of 2026

1 - Smt. Jayanti Chauhan D/o Late Shri Bihari Lal Chauhan Aged About 37 Years W/o Tejram Chauhan, R/o Dipapara Tilgi, Tehsil Pusaur, District- Raigarh (C.G.)

... Appellant(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

2 - Chief Medical And Health Officer District- Raigarh (C.G.)

3 - Deputy Director Directorate Of Health Service District- Raigarh (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sumit Singh Rathore, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, 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.

16/01/2026

1. Heard Mr. Sumit Singh Rathore, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for respondents/State on I.A. No. 1, which is an application for condonation of delay of 33 days in preferring the instant appeal.

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

15.09.2025, passed by learned Single Judge, in WPS No. 10187 of 2025 (Smt. Jayanti Chauhan v. State of Chhattisgarh), by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner.

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 15.09.2025, after an inordinate delay of 33 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 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 33 days in preferring the 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 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