Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.

14-05-2026

1. Heard Mr. Tanmay Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Prasun Bhaduri, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State as well as Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.3 on I.A. No.01, which is an application for condonation of delay of 168 days in preferring the instant appeal.

2. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against an order dated 11.09.2025, passed by learned Single Judge, in WPS No. 3673 of of 2018 (Jaibhan Singh Rathore Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others), by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner.

3. On a pointed query being made to the learned counsel for the appellant as to why he has approached this Court against the impugned order dated 11.09.2025, after an inordinate delay of 168 days, he has not offered any plausible explanation or any cogent reason for delay in filing the writ appeal.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the writ appeal is barred by delay and laches and further there no cogent reason or explanation has been given in the delay and laches application filed for condonation of delay. Hence, the appeal is not liable to be entertained.

5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties as also perused the application for condonation of delay in preferring the instant writ appeal.

6. The primary question that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the delay of about 168 days in preferring the present writ appeal deserves to be condoned or not.

7. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary” 2024 INSC 932, while considering the delay, issued some directions and observed as follows:-

“5. The legal position is that where a case has been presented in the Court beyond limitation, the petitioner has to explain the Court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the Court within limitation. In Majji Sannemma v. Reddy Sridevi, 2021 SCC Online SC 1260, it was held by this Court that even though limitation may harshly affect the rights of a party, it has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed by statute. A reference was also made to the decision of this Court in Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram, 2023 SCC Online 92 wherein, it was held as follows:

"13. This Court in the case of Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer [(2013) 14 SCC 81] while rejecting an application for condonation of delay for lack of sufficient cause has concluded in Paragraph 15 as follows:

“15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.”

14. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court did not commit any mistake in dismissing the del