Absence of Day-to-Day Explanation for Inordinate Delay Renders Writ Appeal Liable for Dismissal

The appellant, Vijay Singh Thakur, filed an intra-court appeal challenging the order dated 12.06.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge in WPC No. 2590 of 2025, which had dismissed his writ petition

Along with the appeal, the appellant filed I.A. No. 1 of 2026, requesting the condonation of a 41-day delay in filing the writ appeal

The appellant failed to provide a day-to-day explanation for this delay in his application

1. Whether the appellant provided sufficient cause to condone the 41-day delay in filing the writ appeal under the principles of limitation and laches

2. Whether a stale or time-barred claim can be entertained in the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the delay

The Court applied the doctrine of limitation and laches as interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Union of India Others v. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 652, which established that while continuing wrongs may allow for delayed reliefs, claims affecting the settled rights of third parties or stale service-related claims should be rejected

C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining and others (2008) 10 SCC 115, which held that representations regarding stale matters do not revive a dead claim or furnish a fresh cause of action, and courts should not entertain such claims purely on "misplaced sympathy"

The Division Bench examined the application for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 1 of 2026) and found that the appellant failed to furnish a "day-to-day explanation" for the 41-day period

Applying the principles from Tarsem Singh and C. Jacob, the Court reasoned that in the absence of a satisfactory or "good ground," the appeal is barred by limitation and suffers from laches

The Court emphasized that a court is not bound to entertain a stale claim simply because a representation was made or an order was passed by a lower forum, especially when the procedural requirement of explaining the delay is unmet

Consequently, I.A. No. 1 of 2026 (application for condonation of delay) was rejected, and the writ appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation