IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA

th

ON THE 18 OF DECEMBER, 2025 FIRST APPEAL No. 1331 of 2025 THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Versus BALDEV AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri S.S. Kushwaha, Government Advocate for appellants/State.

Shri Chetan Kanungo, Advocate for respondent No.1.

ORDER Heard on I.A. No.6266/2025.

2. This is an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is merely mentioned in the application that after the Award was passed, appellants obtained legal opinion and forwarded the matter to the competent Authority and permission was granted by the Law Department on 17/3/2025.

Thus, it is claimed that delay of 433 days may be condoned.

3. In the application for condonation of delay no reasons have been assigned.

4. The Supreme Court in the case of Shankargir Vs. The State of M.P.

and another decided on 5.12.2025 in Civil Appeal No.14613/2025 has referred to the decision in the case of Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) Through His Lr. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 489, wherein it has been held as under:-

30. In Postmaster General v. Living Media India Limited, (2012) 3 SCC 563, this Court, while dismissing the application for condonation of delay of 427 days in filing the Special Leave Petition, held that condonation of delay is not an exception and it should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. In that case, this Court held that unless the Department has reasonable and acceptable reason for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process cannot be accepted. In Para Nos. 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29 respectively, this Court dealt with the scope of ‘sufficient cause’

and held as follows:

“25. We have already extracted the reasons as mentioned in the “better affidavit” sworn by Mr. Aparajeet Pattanayak, SSRM, Air Mail Sorting Division, New Delhi. It is relevant to note that in the said affidavit, the Department has itself mentioned and is aware of the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in Office of the Chief Postmaster v. Living Media India Ltd. [(2009) 8 AD 201] as 11-9-2009. Even according to the deponent, their counsel had applied for the certified copy of the said judgment only on 8-1-2010 and the same was received by the Department on the very same day. There is no explanation for not applying for the certified copy of the impugned judgment on 11-9-2009 or at least within a reasonable time. The fact remains that the certified copy was applied for only on 8-1-

2010 i.e. after a period of nearly four months.

26. In spite of affording another opportunity to file better affidavit by placing adequate material, neither the Department nor the person-in-charge has filed any explanation for not applying the certified copy within the prescribed period. The other dates mentioned in the affidavit which we have already extracted, clearly show that there was delay at every stage and except mentioning the dates of receipt of the file and the decision taken, there is no explanation as to why such delay had occasioned. Though it was stated by the Department that the delay was due to unavoidable circumstances and genuine difficulties, the fact remains that from day one the Department or the person/persons concerned have not evinced diligence in prosecuting the matter to this Court by taking appropriate steps.

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,