Chhattisgarh High Court
Civil Procedure and EvidenceAdministrative and Public Law

Absence of plausible explanation or cogent reasons for delay warrants dismissal of writ appeal.

RAHUL KUMAR DEVDAS vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Chhattisgarh High CourtJUDGMENT: March 24, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Absence of plausible explanation or cogent reasons for delay warrants dismissal of writ appeal.. RAHUL KUMAR DEVDAS vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH. Chhattisgarh High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The appellant, Rahul Kumar Devdas, filed a writ petition (WPS No. 6756/2021) which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on September 8, 2025

Source reference: para. 2

The appeal was filed with a delay of 112 days

Source reference: para. 1

The appellant filed an application (I.A. No. 01/2026) seeking condonation of this delay. During the hearing, the court queried the appellant regarding the reasons for the inordinate delay

Source reference: para. 3

The State respondents opposed the application, contending that the appeal was barred by delay and laches and lacked any cogent explanation for the lapse

Source reference: para. 4
02

Issues

Whether the delay of 112 days in filing the writ appeal can be condoned in the absence of a plausible explanation or cogent reasons

Source reference: para. 3, 7
03

Law Applied

Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 652, which establishes that belated claims are normally rejected unless they involve a "continuing wrong" that does not affect the settled rights of third parties

Source reference: para. 5

C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining (2008) 10 SCC 115, which holds that stale or limitation-barred claims can be rejected on those grounds alone without examining the merits, and that subsequent representations or court-directed considerations do not revive a dead claim

Source reference: para. 6
04

Reasoning

The Court observed that the appellant failed to offer any "plausible explanation" or "cogent reason" for the 112-day delay when specifically queried

Source reference: para. 3

In applying the Tarsem Singh and C. Jacob precedents, the Court noted that the doctrine of laches and limitation must be strictly applied where a claim has become stale, particularly in service matters where third-party rights (like seniority or promotion) might be affected

Source reference: para. 5-6

The Court reasoned that since the grounds raised in the condonation application (I.A. No. 01/2026) were not supported by sufficient or convincing reasoning, there was no "good ground" to exercise judicial discretion to condone the delay

Source reference: para. 7
05

Holding

The Court answered the issue in the negative, holding that the delay could not be condoned without a cogent explanation.

Consequently, the High Court rejected I.A. No. 01/2026 (application for condonation of delay) and dismissed the writ appeal as being barred by limitation

Source reference: para. 8
Chhattisgarh High Court

Original Court PDF

RAHUL KUMAR DEVDASvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Chhattisgarh High Court · March 24, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment