Condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act requires a plausible explanation for the period within the limitation window; administrative lapses or vague correspondence by state officials do not constitute 'sufficient cause' for inordinate delays.

COMMON JUDGMENT

: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr. B.Krishna, learned Government Pleader for Services (Home) for the appellants and Mr. C.Sai Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record.

2. The instant is a writ appeal has been filed along with I.A.No.1 of 2025, which is an application seeking for condonation of delay of 484 days in filing the writ appeal.

3. The order under challenge is one which was passed by the learned Single Bench in W.P.No.4883 of 2019, decided on 26.09.2023. In the course of allowing the said writ petition, the learned Single Bench in addition to setting aside the punishment of withholding of 20% pension for a period of five years has also directed to regularize the suspension period from 13.10.1988 to 14.11.1992 and 15.11.1992 to 31.12.2013 and treat the same as period spent on duty with all consequential benefits.

4. Though the order of the learned Single Bench is dated 26.09.2023 and there being no dispute on the fact that the order of the learned Single Bench having been obtained immediately thereafter, there seems to be no plausible or satisfactory explanation made available by the department seeking for the condonation of an inordinate delay of 484 days in filing of the appeal. The affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory application, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is of 11 pages. However, from the plain reading of the contents of the entire affidavit filed seeking for condonation of delay, what is revealed is that there is only one paragraph narrated in the 11 pages where the department had tried to explain the delay that has occurred in the filing of the appeal. For ready reference, we deem it fit to reproduce the said contents of paragraph 17 of the affidavit which is projected to be the only explanation that was available with the department which prevented them from filing the appeal within a reasonable period of time, if not within the period of limitation. Paragraph 17 reads thus:

“17. It is respectfully submitted that there is delay in preferring the writ appeal affidavit against the order of Hon’ble High Court dated 26.09.2023 in W.P.No.4883/2019, is due to the correspondence with Government through Chief Office. After receipt of representation dated 31.10.2023 from respondent, a letter vide C.No.55/PR-A5/WP/2014 dated 03.11.2023 was addressed to the Director General of Police, Telangana, Hyderabad forwarding his representation along with Hon’ble High Court order dated 26.09.2023 in W.P.No.4883 of 2019 and requested to apprise the detailed facts of this case to the Government and requesting to communicate orders for implementation of the Hon’ble High Court order dated 26.09.2023 in W.P.No.4883/2019, to avoid further legal complications. In turn, the Director General of Police, Telangana, Hyderabad has forwarded the same to the Government vide letter Rc.No.704/T4/2023 dated 18.11.2023. Further, a reminder letter was addressed to the Director General of Police, Telangana, Hyderabad vide letter C.No.55/PR-A5/2014 dated 05.09.2024 requesting to communicate the orders on said Hon’ble High Court order to avoid further legal complications. In turn, the Director General of Police, Telangana, Hyderabad has put up a reminder letter to the Government vide letter Rc.No.704/T4/2023 dated 28.09.2024 requesting to issue early orders to avoid further legal complications. Therefore a delay was caused in preferring writ appeal affidavit due to the above reasons/correspondence with the Government which may kindly be condoned and admitted”.