The State is not entitled to preferential treatment or leniency regarding the law of limitation; administrative lethargy and bureaucratic delay do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act.

PRAYER in C.M.P.No.10906 of 2026 : Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1220 days in filing the appeal.

PRAYER in WA SR No.7210 of 2026 : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 04.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.28988 of 2017.

For Petitioners/Appellants: Mr.K.Kumaran, Government Pleader

JUDGMENT

(Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

In support of the prayer seeking condonation of delay of 1220 days, all that has been stated in the affidavit is as below:

“6. It is submitted that, the order was passed in the above writ petition on 04.08.2022. But the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated time. Copy was sent to the higher authorities to get instructions for further actions and then opinion of legal authority was requested by higher authority and the opinion of filing writ appeal was received and then higher authorities have instructed the legal authorities to prepare Writ appeal etc., and after the preparation of writ appeal etc., they were sent for approval of higher other authorities. Then the writ appeal etc., are submitted for filing in the high court office. Hence, the delay caused in filing this appeal is due to pure administrative reasons.

7. I state that, due to the above said reasons, the writ appeal could not be filed in time. Therefore, there is a delay of 1200 days in filing the above Writ Appeal. The delay is neither wilful nor wanton but for the above said administrative reasons. Unless, the said delay is condoned, the petitioners/appellants would be put into too much hardship.

Under these circumstances, it is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 1220 days in filing the above Writ Appeal against the order dated 04.08.2022 passed in W.P.No.28988 of 2017 and thus render justice.”

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. Bherulal¹1 (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 neglig