Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

1. Heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/appellants on I.A. No.02, which is an application for condonation of delay of 230 days in preferring the present writ appeal.

2. Mr. Thakur submits that the present writ appeal has been preferred against the order dated 05.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 995/2020; however, there has occurred a delay of 230 days in filing the same. It is submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate but has occurred due to unavoidable administrative and procedural formalities within the State machinery. It is further submitted that after the impugned order was passed, the concerned department sought legal opinion from the Office of the Advocate General, Chhattisgarh. Upon receipt of the opinion recommending filing of the appeal, the matter was processed through the competent authorities for obtaining necessary sanction from the Law and Legislative Affairs Department. After completion of the said procedural formalities, sanction for filing the appeal was granted on 24.12.2025 and thereafter the Officer-in-Charge was appointed on 02.01.2026, pursuant to which the present writ appeal has been drafted and filed.

3. Learned counsel further submits that the State is an impersonal machinery functioning through several departments and levels of decision- making and, therefore, some amount of delay in obtaining approvals and sanctions is inevitable. It is contended that the delay has occurred on account of bona fide administrative procedures and not due to any negligence or lack of diligence on the part of the appellants. It is lastly submitted that the appellants have a strong case on merits and substantial questions arise for consideration in the accompanying writ appeal. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao, (2005) 3 SCC 372, wherein it has been held that a pragmatic and justice- oriented approach should be adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay filed by the State. Therefore, it is prayed that the delay in filing the present writ appeal may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 opposes the prayer for condonation of delay and submits that the appellants have failed to show any sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the present writ appeal. It is contended that the explanation offered by the State regarding administrative and procedural formalities is vague and cannot be accepted as a valid ground for condonation of delay. It is further submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is well reasoned and does not call for any interference. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay deserves to be dismissed.

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 negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substant