2026:CGHC:9436-DB ROHIT NAFR KUMAR CHANDRA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA WA No. 178 of 2026

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Forest Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No.1)

2 - The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Aranya Bhawan, Sector - 19, New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 2)

3 - The Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Aranya Bhawan, Sector -19, New Raipur,district Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 3)

... Appellants versus Om Prakash Verma S/o B. P. Verma Aged About 41 Years Forest Research Institute, Koni, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

(Petitioner)

... Respondent For State/Appellants : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Addl. Adv. General For Respondent : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kanchan Kalwani, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

24.02.2026

1 Heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/appellants as well as Ms.Sharmila Singhai, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Kanchan Kalwani, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent on I.A. No.01 of 2026, which is an application for condonation of delay of 164 days in preferring the instant appeal.

2 Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State/appellants submits that the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order on 09.07.2025 in WPS No. 7887 of 2018 (Om Prakash Verma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others). Thereafter, the competent authority, vide letter dated 08.10.2025 sought opinion from the Office of the Advocate General about filing of writ appeal against the impugned order and the legal opinion has been given by the State Counsel on 17.12.2025. Based upon the aforesaid opinion, the file has been sent to the Department of Law seeking permission for filing writ appeal and the permission has been given by the Department of law and Legislative for filing writ appeal on 14.01.2026, thereafter OIC has been appointed on 15.01.2026, who contacted the Office of Advocate General on 23.01.2026, thereafter, after collecting the relevant materials and earlier service records of the petitioner, the present appeal has been filed on 03.02.2026.

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 164 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 164 days in preferring the appeal 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