Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

1. Heard Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/appellants as well as Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent on I.A. No.02 of 2026, which is an application for condonation of delay of 79 days in preferring the instant appeal.

2. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State/appellants submits that immediately after passing the order impugned dated 25/08/2025 the appellants/State authorities had sought an opinion from the Office of the Advocate General in respect to the further recourse to be taken by the State Government. Upon which the Office of the Advocate General vide its letter No. AG/CG/BSP/2025/6656 dated 13-10/2025 has accorded opinion for filing appeal and thereafter proposal has been sent to the Law and Legislative Affairs Department through the Department of Medical Education for sanction in the month of October, 2025 and accordingly the sanction for filing appeal has been accorded on 14/01/2026 and thereafter OIC is appointed vide order dated 15/01/2026 by the Medical Education Department and the present appeal is being drafted and filed before this Hon'ble Court. He further submits that the State is a multi-functioning body and it has to follow the rules of obtaining sanction etc. for filing an appeal. It took some time for the State to obtain sanction etc. from the highest authorities of the State for preferring this petition. The delay, if any, in filing the petition by the State may kindly be condoned on the basis of principles as laid down in case of State of Nagaland Vs. LipokAo reported in (2005) 3 SCC page 372.

3. 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.

4. 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 time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the pr