Digitally 2025:CGHC:58499-DB signed by ANURADHA NAFR ANURADHA TIWARI TIWARI Date:

2025.12.03

15:13:15 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 877 of 2025

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Department Of Health And Family Welfare Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur District- Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2 - The Director Directorate Health And Family Welfare Indrawati Bhawan Naya Raipur District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3 - The Chief Medical And Health Officer Mahasamund District-

Mahsamund Chhattisgarh, ... Appellants versus Dr. Neeraj Yadu S/o Late Dr. B.S. Yadu Aged About 65 Years Assistant Surgeon (Dental) Government Hospital Mahasamund, District-

Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellants : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General For Respondent : Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Harsh Dave, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

03.12 .2025

1. Heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the appellants/State on I.A. No.01 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 106 days in preferring the writ appeal. Also heard Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Harsh Dave, learned counsel for the sole respondent.

2. Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/appellants, submits that the appellants have preferred the instant writ appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 27/05/2025 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 4590/2018. It is submitted that the appeal is, on the face of it, barred by limitation as provided under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006, since the impugned order was passed on 27/05/2025 and the present appeal is being filed. He further submits that the delay in filing the instant appeal is genuine and bonafide, having occurred due to routine administrative and procedural steps, including: obtaining the opinion of the office of the Advocate General, seeking and receiving permission from the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs, and collection of relevant records by the Officer-in-Charge. The appeal has been drafted and is being filed without any further delay. It is therefore submitted that the delay of only 106 days is entirely bonafide, and the same is liable to be condoned.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Harsh Dave, learned counsel, appearing for the sole respondent, submits that against the order dated 27/05/2025 passed in W.P.(S) No. 4590/2018, a contempt petition had been filed, and only after issuance of notice in the said contempt petition, the present appeal has been filed by the State/appellants.

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 why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.

28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross