1. Appeal dismissed solely on ground of delay — Writ petition challenging the same. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 534
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANUROOP SINGHI, J.
Panchayat Samiti Jhotwara, Jaipur, Through Development Officer – Petitioner
Versus
Durga, S/o. Ruda – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16479 of 2023
Decided On : 09-03-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG, Mr. Ashutosh Udawat.
For the Respondent: Mr. R.B. Mathur, Sr. Adv. With Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Palia.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG, Mr. Ashutosh Udawat.
For the Respondent: Mr. R.B. Mathur, Sr. Adv. With Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Palia.
Government departments are not entitled to special privilege regarding limitation; bureaucratic delays and administrative lethargy do not constitute 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Condonation of delay - Government departments cannot claim special privilege in matters of limitation - Bureaucratic delays, procedural red tape, and impersonal machinery cannot constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay - Law of limitation binds everyone, including the Government. (Paras 8, 9)
(B) Discretion of Court - Condonation of delay is an exception and not a matter of right - Burden lies on the applicant to establish sufficient cause for the entire period of delay - A distinction must be drawn between an ‘explanation’ and an ‘excuse’. (Para 10)
(C) Constitutional Courts - Should not become surrogates for state lethargy - Administrative laxity and indifference cannot be a ground for condoning inordinate delay, as this would frustrate the finality of decrees and the rights of private litigants. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
A writ petition was filed challenging an order passed by a revenue board, which had dismissed an appeal solely on the ground of delay (4 years and 50 days). The present writ petition was filed after a further colossal delay of approximately 9 years without providing any justification or pleading for the said delay.
Findings of Court:
The order of the revenue board was passed strictly in accordance with the law. The petitioner failed to tender any justification for the 9-year delay in filing the writ petition, rendering the petition non-entertainable.
Issues: Whether the significant delays in filing the appeal before the revenue board and the subsequent writ petition before the High Court were justifiable, and whether government agencies are entitled to special latitude regarding the law of limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The law of limitation is founded on public policy to ensure litigation is initiated within a reasonable time and stale claims are not revived at the whim of a negligent litigant. Government agencies are under a special obligation to perform duties with diligence; bureaucratic indifference or procedural red tape does not constitute sufficient cause. For condonation of delay, each day’s delay must be explained; in the absence of such justification, the court cannot interfere with the dismissal of a time-barred claim. (Paras 8, 9, 14)
Result: Writ petition stands dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners argued delay was due to political reasons; respondent contended delay was colossal and unjustified. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
3. Government cannot claim special privilege in limitation; each day's delay must be explained; stale claims not revived. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
4. Condonation of delay is discretionary; burden on applicant to show sufficient cause for entire period; bureaucratic delays insufficient. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 13 )
5. Writ petition dismissed; order of Board of Revenue affirmed. (Para 15 , 16 )
6. What is the standard for condonation of delay when the applicant is a government department?
Government departments cannot claim special privilege. Bureaucratic delays and procedural red tape do not constitute sufficient cause. Each day's delay must be explained with bona fide effort. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
7. Is an explanation of 'political reasons' sufficient to condone an inordinate delay?
No. The court found that such a vague explanation does not justify the delay, and the petitioners failed to show sufficient cause for the entire period of delay. (Para 3 , 6 , 13 )
8. What is the consequence of filing a writ petition with an unexplained delay of several years?
The court held that without any justification for the delay, there is no occasion to entertain the writ petition, and it must be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. (Para 13 , 14 )
9. When can a court exercise its discretionary power of condonation of delay?
Condonation is not a matter of right. The court's discretion is to be exercised only when the applicant establishes a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the entire period of delay. (Para 10 , 11 )
Order :
ANUROOP SINGHI, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 28.05.2014 passed by the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer in Appeal No. Appeal/Decree/T.A./6941/2012/Jaipur. The said order was passed in an appeal filed against the judgment dated 26.06.2008 passed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur in Appeal No.119/2004, which was dismissed solely on the ground of delay.
2. Learned counsel Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Ashutosh Udawat, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners submits that a detailed justification explaining the specific cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the learned Board of Revenue was submitted. However, the same has not been considered by the learned Board of Revenue in the right perspective and without considering the facts enumerated in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the appeal has been dismissed.
3. Learned counsel further submits that it was only on account of political reasons that the said delay occured and by not condoning the same, loss to public exchequer and public interest has been caused. Thus, the order dated 28.05.2014 deserves to be set aside and the appeal filed by the petitioners before the learned Board of Revenue against the order dated 26.06.2008 be heard and decided on merits.
4. Learned counsel Mr. R.B. Mathur, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Palia, Advocate, submits that not only the appeal was filed before the learned Board of Revenue with a delay of 4 years and 50 days, but even the writ petition preferred before this Court has been filed after a colossal delay of around 9 years and no justification whatsoever has been submitted for the said delay in the writ petition.
5. Learned counsel further submits that the said conduct itself demonstrates the lackadaisical approach adopted by the petitioners and they cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own wrong.
6. Learned counsel further submits that the order dated 28.05.2014 duly considers the justification given by the petitioners with respect to the delay, and a specific finding has been recorded that the petitioners have miserably failed to justify the delay in filing the appeal. Thus, the order dated 28.05.2014 has been passed strictly in accordance with law and the writ petition deserved to be dismissed on ground of delay and laches as well.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. Though the State can expect to be granted some latitude with respect to the action or inaction of its officers, the said inaction cannot travel beyond a particular point so as to defeat the entire legal process. The law of limitation is founded on public policy to ensure that litigation is initiated within a reasonable time and stale claims are not revived at the whim of a negligent litigant.
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Postmaster General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr., reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563 has categorically held that government departments cannot claim a special privilege in matters of limitation and that bureaucratic delays cannot constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Relevant paras of the judgment 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 li
