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. 2The appeal was filed with a delay of 112 days
Source reference: para. 1The 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. 3The 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. 4Issues
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, 7Law 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. 5C. 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. 6Reasoning
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. 3In 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. 5-6The 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. 7Holding
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. 8Original Court PDF
RAHUL KUMAR DEVDASvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in