Condonation of delay should be granted when there is no deliberate laches, especially in cases involving the State, to ensure that the matter is decided on its merits rather than being scuttled by technical limitations.

ORAL ORDER

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

7 05-02-2026

Re:- I.A. No. 01 of 2025

1. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing this Letters Patent Appeal. The stamp reporter has pointed out that there is delay of 1 year, 2 months and 19 days in filing the L.P.A.

2. The ground, that has been taken in the interim application filed by the State of Bihar for condonation of delay inter alia is as follows:-

“5. That on 13.9.2024 the deponent had joined as District Education Officer Kishanganj.

6. That it was only thereafter that it was through the representation filed by the writ petitioner in light of order dated 22.4.2024 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8780/2016 that the present case had come within knowledge.

7. That it is stated that thereafter the matter was deliberated and a broad consensus was arrived at to move for intra court Appeal.

8. That the proposed ground of appeal had been sent by the District Education Officer, Kishanganj to rector Primary Education Bihar vide letter dated 18.2.2025.

9. That it is submitted the aforesaid facts would prove that the delay in filing the present memo of appeal not intentional.

10. That it is submitted that in the process of filing of Letters Patent Appeal, institutional decision at different level consumed considerable time.

11. That the Appellant prays for a liberal and justice oriented approach in considering the cause behind the delay even through the same was intentional, bona-fide and caused by the reasons beyond the control of the Appellant.

12. That the appellants have a good case on merit.

13. That in view of the facts and circumstances stated above, the delay caused in filing the appeal is fit to be condoned otherwise the appellants shall be put to irreparable loss and damage.”

3. No specific objection has been filed in interim application, however, counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in the L.P.A., wherein it is stated as follows:-

“That, in the backdrop as explained above the present appeal- apart from being barred by the law of limitation is also fit to be rejected, so far the merit of the appeal is concerned and, thus, the (petitioner)- Respondent humbly prays to the Hon'ble Court to dismiss the same.”

4. Learned counsel for the State has placed reliance in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 600, wherein it has been observed as follows:-

“7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court had failed to deal with how ‘sufficient cause’ had been shown by the respondent for condoning the delay, moreso when the respondent's Review Petition before the First Appellate Court was also dismissed on the ground of delay as they did not provide any justification for filing the review after a delay of over two years. He contended that it is settled law that ‘sufficient cause’ means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or failed to exercise due diligence. Therefore, the appellant's argument that the cause of delay was due to COVID-19 cannot be accepted, as the respondent failed to remain vigilant, since the cause of action arose much before the pandemic hit.

14. There can be no quarrel on the settled principle of law that delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, but a major aspect which has to be kept in mind is that, if in a particular case, the merits have to be examined, it should not be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation.

15. In the present case, the filing of the Review Petition before the First Appellate Court was with a delay of two years and four months and the Second Appeal before the High Court was delayed