STATE OF CHHATTISGARH vs DR. RAKESH KUMAR TIWARI - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 20962

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 20962

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Appellant
Versus
DR. RAKESH KUMAR TIWARI – Respondent
WA No. 538 of 2026

Important Points

Government departments are not entitled to mechanical condonation of delay based on bureaucratic red-tape; they must demonstrate 'sufficient cause' and diligence, as the law of limitation applies equally to the State and private litigants.

Subject

Civil - Limitation

Act Referred

Limitation Act, 1908: S.5

Headnote

The court considered an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, filed by the State seeking to excuse a delay of 585 days in filing a writ appeal against an order dated 20.08.2024. The State attributed the delay to the working of government machinery and departmental formalities. The court found that the explanation provided was vague and lacked specificity, failing to establish 'sufficient cause'. The primary issue was whether the State's reliance on bureaucratic procedural delays constitutes sufficient cause for condoning an inordinate delay. The court reasoned that the law of limitation binds the Government equally with private litigants and that condonation is an exception, not a matter of generosity. Citing various precedents, the court held that 'sufficient cause' cannot be liberally interpreted where negligence or lack of bona fides is evident, and government departments are under a special obligation to perform duties with diligence. The instant writ appeal is also dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Prasun Bhaduri
For the Respondents: Prateek Sharma

Table of Content
1. application for condonation of delay by the state citing bureaucratic formalities. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. the law of limitation applies equally to the state; bureaucratic red-tape is not 'sufficient cause'. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. dismissal of appeal due to failure to provide a cogent explanation for inordinate delay. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

1. Heard Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellants/State and Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent on I.A. No.01/2026, which is an application for condonation of delay.

2. Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/ appellants submits that the petition filed by the writ petitioner bearing WPS No. 3356/2024 has been decided alongwith other connected matters. Against which the Law & Legislative Affairs Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur sent a proposal to the office of the Advocate General to file an appeal against the order dated 20.08.2024 passed by this Court in WPS No. 3356/2024 and other connected matters. Thereafter, the case was placed before the Advocate General and then the case was marked for drafting and as per the above proposal, the office has initiated proceeding and certified copy of the impugned order and other relevant exhibited documents have been received from the concerned Department and thereafter, the instant appeal was prepared and filed before this Court.

3. It has been contended that the State, after obtaining necessary documents and information with respect to the case, however, some delay was occurred due to fulfillment of various formalities and working of the Government machinery, hence, at times the fulfillment of departmental formalities takes unexpected long time. Therefore, in some cases the State is prevented from filing the case within the prescribed period of limitation, which is bonafide and not deliberate. The instant appeal is, therefore, being filed after a delay of 585 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 585 days in preferring the appeal may be condoned.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued and pointed out that challenging the order of learned Single Judge in the other similar matters, a batch of writ appeals was filed and the same was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 25/08/2023 against which the State has preferred an SLP before the Apex Court which too was dismissed vide order dated 07/11/2025 on the ground of delay.

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

6. 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.

7. 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