STATE OF CHHATTISGARH vs CHINTARAM YADAV

1

CGHC010373242026 2026:CGHC:45702-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally
signed by
BABLU
RAJENDRA
BHANARKAR
Date:
2026.10.29
17:22:17
+0530
BABLU
RAJENDRA
BHANARKAR
WA No. 1046 of 2026
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Adim Jati
And Anusuchit Jati Vikas Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2 - The Commissioner, Department Of Adim Jati And Anusuchit Jati
Vikas Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh
3 - Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Department, Balod
Distt. Balod Chhattisgarh
... Appellants
versus
1 - Chintaram Yadav S/o Parshuram Yadav Aged About 47 Years R/o
Village Dhotiya, P/s Dondi District Balod, Chhattisgarh
2 - Kamleshwar Thakur S/o Sukhram Aged About 46 Years R/o Village
Markatola, P/s Dondi District Balod, Chhattisgarh
3 - Doman Singh Sihare S/o Dwarikaram Sihare Aged About 38 Years
R/o Village Pateli, P/s Dondi District Balod, Chhattisgarh
4 - Rupsingh Bhuaarya S/o Manbodh Ram Aged About 47 Years R/o
Village Chikhli, P/s Dondi District Balod, Chhattisgarh
5 - Devkumar S/o Shri Bhola Ram Aged About 42 Years R/o Village
Marartola, Chhindgaon, P/s Dondi District Balod, Chhattisgarh
6 - Dinesh Kumar S/o Ram Jharokha Aged About 42 Years R/o Village
Rengadabari, District Balod Chhattisgarh
7 - Virendra Kumar Sahu S/o Joidha Ram Sahu Aged About 32 Years
R/o Village Khallari, P/s Balod District Balod, Chhattisgarh

2
8 - Uday Kumar S/o Rajaram Aged About 28 Years R/o Village
Dallirajhara, P/s Dallirajhara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh
9 - Anita Raote W/o Deepak Kumar Raote R/o Village Dhotimtola
Darutola, P/s Dondi District Balod, Chhattisgarh
10 - Pyare Lal S/o Krishna Ram Aged About 32 Years R/o Village
Khallari, P/S Dondi District Balod, Chhattisgarh
11 - Bhojram Sahu S/o Ram Jharokha Sahu Aged About 49 Years R/o
Village Marartola, P/s Dondi District Balod, Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
For Appellants : Mr.Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General
For Respondents : Ms.Shriyadeep Gupta, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Krushna Ram Mohapatra , Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Santosh Sharma , Judge
Order on Board
Per Krushna Ram Mohapatra , Chief Justice
.10.2026 29
1. Heard Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General,
appearing for the appellants/State. Also heard Ms. Shriyadeep Gupta,
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. I.A. No. 2 of 2026 , this is an application for condonation of delay of
34 days in filing the writ appeal.
3. The State of Chhattisgarh and two others as appellants have filed
this intra-Court appeal against the order dated 30.06.2026 passed by the
learned Single Judge in Review Petition No. 183 of 2026, by which the
review petition was dismissed confirming order dated 02.05.2025 passed
by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 5147 of 2017 filed by the

3
respondents.
4. Mr. Das, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the
State/appellants, submits that the delay is only 34 days in filing the writ
appeal. Delay occurred due to period consumed in obtaining
administrative approval to file the writ appeal. He drew attention to
paragraph-4 of the application for condonation of delay. It is submitted that
after the judgment dated 02.05.2025 was passed by learned Single Judge,
the Department, by its order dated 25.03.2026, sought for an opinion from
the Office of the learned Advocate General. Such opinion was given on
07-08.04.2026 by the Office of learned Advocate General. Thereafter, the
Department of Law & Legislative Affairs, Government of Chhattisgarh was
moved to grant necessary permission to file review petition. Such
permission / sanction was granted vide order dated 05.05.2026 and the
review petition was filed on 21.05.2026. He further submits that similar
procedure was adopted for filing the writ appeal. In the process 34 days
delay occurred in filing the writ appeal. As such, delay in filing of the writ
appeal is bonafide and not intentional. Since the appellants have fair
chance of success in the writ appeal, the delay of 34 days in filing the writ
appeal should be condoned and the appeal be heard on merit.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently objects to the
same and submits that a detailed objection has been filed by the
respondents. Referring to the objection, learned counsel for the
respondents submits that the review petition itself was filed approximately
one year and three months after the judgment was passed by the learned
Single Judge. As provisions of Limitation Act is not applicable to the writ

4
petitions and proceedings arising therefrom in view of order passed in
Smt. Jyoti vs. General Manager in MCC No. 591 of 2016 disposed of on
13.12.2016, the review petition was heard on merit and was dismissed.
The explanation given by the State Government for condonation of delay
are mere excuses. The opinion of learned Advocate General to file a
review petition was sought for after almost one year. Further, the delay of
34 days in filing the writ appeal has not been explained in the application
for condonation of delay. Period consumed in obtaining administrative
approval cannot be a ground for condonation of delay as held in
Postmaster General & Others vs. Living Media India Limited &
Another ; (2012) 3 SCC 563, wherein it is held that Government
Departments / Public Sector Undertakings are under a special obligation to
discharge their duties with due diligence and commitment. Condonation of
delay is an exception, not the rule, and cannot be claimed as a matter of
right or anticipated privilege by the Government Entities / Public Sector
Undertakings. The law casts its protection equally upon all litigants and
cannot be distorted to confer undue advantage upon a select few.
6. It is submitted that the State Government in order to avoid rigors of
the contempt proceedings, sought for opinion of the learned Advocate
General to file review petition and being unsuccessful therein, to file the
writ appeal. The contempt petition is still pending for consideration. Since
the State Government and its authorities were at laches in performing their
duties and not at all diligent in filing the writ appeal, the delay should not
be condoned.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the application

5
for condonation of delay as well as the case law cited.
8. Admittedly, the judgment was passed by the learned Single Judge
on 02.05.2025, but the State of Chhattisgarh maintained a sphinx like
silence for almost a one year to seek for opinion of learned Advocate
General to file a review petition which was sought for only on 25.03.2026,
that too after initiation of contempt proceeding, i.e. almost one year after.
The Office of learned Advocate General gave its opinion on
07-08.04.2026. Thereafter, the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs,
Government of Chhattisgarh was moved to grant necessary sanction to file
the review petition which was sanctioned on 05.05.2026.
9. The review petition was filed on 21.05.2026 and was dismissed as
not maintainable vide order dated 30.06.2026. Thereafter, the State
Government adopted the similar procedure for filing the present writ
appeal. By the time the writ appeal was filed, more than one year had
elapsed in challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge in
WPS No. 5147 of 2017. Although, technically, there is a delay of 34 days in
filing the writ appeal, but it appears that the State of Chhattisgarh was not
at all diligent in exercising its right either to file a review petition or to file
the present writ appeal within a reasonable period.
10. Period consumed in obtaining administrative approval cannot be a
ground to condone the delay. The Government has a robust mechanism
manned by experts. Thus, delay in moving the higher forums / Courts
should be viewed seriously. Law does not provide a different limitation
period for the State Government; the period of limitation is same for all.
Our opinion gets support from the judgment in Postmaster General

6
(supra).
11. The so-called explanation given in the application for condonation of
delay are mere excuses, much less any sufficient cause for condonation of
delay. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the
application for condonation of delay, which is devoid of any merit.
12. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay, i.e. I.A. No. 2 of
2026, stands dismissed . Consequently, the writ appeal also stands
dismissed being barred by limitation.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Santosh Sharma) (Krushna Ram Mohapatra)
Judge Chief Justice
Bablu