Administrative inefficiency does not automatically justify condonation of delay under limitation laws; sufficient cause must be established.

In support of the prayer seeking condonation of delay of 285 days, all that has been stated in the affidavit is as below:

“4. It is submitted that the copy of the orders of this Hon’ble Court dated 11.03.2025 made in W.P.No.25296 of 2022 was received on 16.05.2025. Immediately, after receipt of the copy of the order, the subject matter has been discussed and decided to prefer Writ Appeal and legal opinion has been obtained regarding the feasibility of filing appeal. However, there has been 285 days delay of filing appeal before this Hon’ble Court which is neither wilful nor wanton but due to the administrative reasons such as Free House Site Patta distribution in reference to G.O.Ms.No.97 – Revenue and Disaster Management Department dated 21.02.2025 was unable to prefer an appeal before this Hon’ble Court within the limitation period. I submit that the appellants herein have fair chances of succeeding in this appeal and balance of convenience is in favour of the appellants herein. Hence it is just and necessary that this Hon’ble Court may condone the delay of 285 days in filing this Writ Appeal and no prejudice will be caused to the respondent / writ petitioner herein.”

2. To say the least, no cause, much less sufficient cause, has been shown. It appears that the officials concerned dealing with the files were completely indolent and sat over the matter without doing anything.

3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in umpteen number of judgments, held that the period of limitation is required to be explained by the State and it does not stand on any exalted position.

(i) In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. V. Bherulal, 1(2020) 10 SCC 654 it was found that the appeal filed by the State was with delay of 663 days. The cause shown for inordinate delay in that case was due to unavailability of documents and the process of arranging documents

and also a reference to bureaucratic process works. In the aforesaid factual context, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, observed as below:

"3. No doubt, some leeway is given for the Government inefficiencies but the sad part is that the authorities keep on relying on judicial pronouncements for a period of time when technology had not advanced and a greater leeway was given to the Government (Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. MANU/SC/0460/1987 : (1987) 2 SCC 107). This position is more than elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. MANU/SC/0132/2012 : (2012) 3 SCC 563 where the Court observed 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 bi