[2025:RJ-JD:52565-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 673/2025

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Churu, Rajasthan.

3. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Sardarshahar, District Churu, Rajasthan.

----Appellants Versus Kishan Kumar Danodiya S/o Shri Hans Raj Danodiya, Resident Of- Village Khera Dikhnada, Sardarshahar, District Churu, Rajasthan.

----Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Pawan Bharti for Mr. I.R. Choudhary, AAG For Respondent : --

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

05/12/2025

1. Although notices for application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act were issued but they were not served. We examined the reasons for delay in filing of the appeal. The appeal has been preferred after 678 days. It is apparent from the perusal of the application under Section 5 of the Act that the decision to file appeal was taken on 30.03.2024 and officer in-charge was appointed on 15.04.2024 but the appeal was filed on 10.07.2025.

2. Even if we condone delay from 15.04.2024, no reasons are coming forward for not filing appeal for a period of almost one year and three months.

3. In Shivamma (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and Ors.¹ , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-

1 MANU/SC/1262/2025 “193. It was in this backdrop, particularly, the persistent disregard to the laws of limitation by the States and its instrumentalities that compelled this Court in Postmaster General (supra) to deviate from the earlier practice of extending unwarranted leniency governmental agencies, and to emphasise that the law of limitation binds the State no less than the ordinary litigant. The said decision is in three parts:

(i) First, This Court held that claims of the Government and its functionaries being an impersonal machinery and inherited with bureaucratic methodology can no longer be accepted to excuse delays Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The relevant observations read 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 bona fides, 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 binds everybody, including the Government.

(ii) Secondly, this Court in Postmaster General (supra) held that it was high time that the practice of condoning delay merely because the litigant is a government entity was done away with, and that delay should be condoned only where there is a reasonable and acceptable explanation for such delay and was accompanied by a bona fide effort. It further observed that the usual explanation of bureaucratic inefficiency and of procedural red tapism can no longer be accepted. The relevant observations read as under:

29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the