Absence of plausible explanation for inordinate delay justifies rejection of appeal on grounds of laches.

The Appellant (CSIDC) challenged an order dated 30.04.2024 passed by a Single Judge in WPC No. 1553/2016.

The Single Judge had directed the Appellant to initiate land acquisition proceedings and pay compensation to the private respondents for land used to construct a road connecting NH-200 to Sector-D, Industrial Area, Bilaspur.

The present Writ Appeal was filed after a delay of 514 days.

The Appellant filed an application (I.A. No. 01) for condonation of this delay.

Whether the Appellant provided sufficient cause or a plausible explanation to condone the inordinate delay of 514 days in filing the writ appeal.

The Court applied the doctrine of "delay and laches" and the law of limitation.

It relied on Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2008), which establishes that while relief may be granted for a "continuing wrong," stale claims or orders affecting settled rights should not be entertained if there is an unjustified delay.

It further cited C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining (2008), which held that representations regarding stale matters cannot furnish a fresh cause of action or revive dead claims, and that courts should not exercise "misplaced sympathy" to encourage indiscipline or drain the public exchequer where records may no longer exist.

The Division Bench observed that the Appellant approached the Court 514 days after the impugned order was passed.

Upon a pointed query from the Bench, the counsel for the Appellant failed to offer any plausible explanation or cogent reason for this inordinate delay.

The State also opposed the appeal, arguing that no sufficient grounds were mentioned in the condonation application.

Applying the principles from Tarsem Singh and C. Jacob, the Court reasoned that in the absence of a "continuing wrong" or a valid justification for the lapse of time, the discretionary power to condone delay under the Limitation Act cannot be exercised to revive a stale challenge.

Consequently, I.A. No. 01 (application for condonation of delay) was rejected.

The Writ Appeal was dismissed as time-barred.