Judgment on Board

Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ .

1 Heard learned counsel for parties on I.A. No.01 of 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 petitioners bearing WPS No. 3600/2024 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.1663/2022 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 583 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 583 days in preferring the appeal may be condoned.

4 Learned counsel for the respondent have 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 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