The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Amar Singh Rajput

1 WA-1959-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
&
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
st
ON THE 1 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 1959 of 2026
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
AMAR SINGH RAJPUT
Appearance:
Shri Vivek Khedkar - Additional Advocate General/Senior Advocate
with Shri C.P. Singh - Government Advocate for appellants/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
This appeal under Section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand
Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, has been filed against the order
dated 28.08.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. No.8634/2013.
2. Heard on I.A. No.8564/2026, this is an application for condonation
of delay of 201 days.
3. It is mentioned in the application that after the impugned order dated
28.08.2025 was passed, the Officer-in-Charge of the case, vide
communication dated 08.10.2025, requested the Office of the Advocate
General, Gwalior, to tender legal opinion regarding the feasibility of filing a
writ appeal. Legal opinion was tendered on 03.12.2025 recommending filing
of the appeal. Thereafter, the matter was processed through various
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 07-09-2026
05:37:43 PM

2 WA-1959-2026
authorities, and the permission to file the writ appeal was granted by the Law

Department on 07.04.2026, but this appeal has been filed on 15.06.2026.
4. It is submitted by counsel for appellants/State that the delay
occurred due to procedural and administrative formalities and movement of
the file through various authorities. It is submitted that since the State has to
work through its various authorities, therefore, the prayer for condonation of
delay may be considered sympathetically.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. The Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Ramkumar
Choudhary decided on 29/11/2024 i n SLP (C) Diary No. 48636/2024 has
held as under:-
"6. At the same time, we cannot simply brush aside the delay
occurred in preferring the second appeal, due to callous and
lackadaisical attitude on the part of the officials functioning in the
State machinery. Though the Government adopts systematic
approach in handling the legal issues and preferring the petitions/
applications/ appeals well within the time, due to the fault on the
part of the officials in merely communicating the information on
time, huge revenue loss will be caused to the Government
exchequer. The present case is one such case, wherein, enormous
delay of 1788 days occasioned in preferring the second appeal due
to the lapses on the part of the officials functioning under the
State, though valuable Government lands were involved.
Therefore, we direct the State to streamline the machinery
touching the legal issues, offering legal opinion, filing of cases
before the Tribunal / Courts, etc., fix the responsibility on the
officer(s) concerned, and penalize the officer(s), who is/are
responsible for delay, deviation, lapses, etc., if any, to the value of
the loss caused to the Government. Such direction will have to be
followed by all the States scrupulously."
(Emphasis supplied)
7. According to the application, time was consumed in movement of
the file amongst various authorities, obtaining permissions etc. However, no
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 07-09-2026
05:37:43 PM

3 WA-1959-2026
satisfactory explanation has been furnished as to why the matter was not

processed with due promptitude and why the appeal was not filed within the
prescribed period of limitation. No sufficient reasons have been assigned in
the application for condonation of delay. The appellants have not proposed
any action against any of the officers who might be responsible for the delay.
The State cannot be treated as a privileged litigant.
8. Although it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that
there is substance in the merits of the case, but while deciding the question of
limitation, the merits of the case are not required to be looked into. The
Supreme Court in the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (died) by LRs & Others
v. Special Deputy Collector (LA) reported in (2024) 12 SCC 336 has held as
under:-
"28. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law,
as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that
:
28.1. Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there
should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy
rather than the right itself;
28.2. A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed
of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a
fixed period of time;
28.3. The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed
differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense
whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally;
28.4. In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal
approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice
may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the
substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 07-09-2026
05:37:43 PM

4 WA-1959-2026
Limitation Act;
28.5. Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the
delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of
power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if
sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where
there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence;
28.6. Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it
does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if
the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in
filing the appeal;
28.7. Merits of the case are not required to be considered in
condoning the delay; and
28.8. Delay condonation application has to be decided on the
parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the
delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed,
tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision."

9. As no sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of delay,
accordingly, I.A. No.8564/2026 is hereby rejected.
10. Consequently, the writ appeal is also dismissed as barred by time.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
JUDGE
Aman

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 07-09-2026
05:37:43 PM