Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

1. Heard Mr.P.K.Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellants/State as well as Mr. Sharad Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent on I.A. No.02 of 2026, which is an application for condonation of delay.

2. Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/appellants submits that the instant writ appeal is being preferred by the appellants/State against the order dated 19.06.2025 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4812 of 2015 (Sandeep Mishra vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others), whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed and set- aside the order dated 21.07.2015. He further submits that 45 days time is allowed under the law to file an appeal before the Division Bench against the order passed by learned Single Judge. It is submitted that the order impugned was passed on 19.06.2025. Thereafter, the Director, Social Welfare, Chhattisgarh, Raipur sought an opinion from the office of Advocate General on 13.08.2025. After receiving the order, an opinion was sought from the office of the Advocate General, which was given on 10.09.2025. Thereafter, the file was sent to the Law & Legislative Affairs Department, Government of Chhattisgarh for obtaining sanction with regard to filing of writ appeal. The Law & Legislative Affairs Department accorded sanction on 01.12.2025, which was received by the Department on 08.12.2025 and thereafter, Officer-in-Charge has been appointed and he approached the office of the Advocate General for filing the instant writ appeal. Thereafter, the writ appeal has been prepared and is being filed before the Hon'ble Court. The instant appeal is, therefore, being filed after a delay of 178 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 Haryana v. Chandra Mani and others, (1996) 3 SCC 132, to buttress his submissions. As such, the learned State counsel prays that the delay of 464 days in preferring the appeal may be condoned.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellants/State.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed herewith.

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 file an appeal against the order passed by the writ Court.

6. 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 negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government.

29. In our view, it is the right t