Administrative approval delays do not constitute sufficient cause to condone the State’s appeal delay.

The State and its officers appealed against the dismissal of a review petition, which had affirmed an order dated 2 May 2025 in the respondents’ writ petition.

The State sought condonation of a 40-day delay in filing the writ appeal, attributing it to the time taken to obtain administrative approval.

The review petition had itself been filed on 22 May 2026, after the Department sought the Advocate General’s opinion on 25 March 2026; the appeal followed the review petition’s dismissal on 23 June 2026.

The respondents opposed condonation, relying on the State’s prolonged inaction and the principle that administrative approval does not, by itself, justify delay.

1. Whether the State demonstrated sufficient cause to condone the 40-day delay in filing the writ appeal.

2. Whether time spent obtaining administrative approval, considered alongside the State’s earlier inaction, justified condonation.

The Court relied on the principle in Postmaster General & Others v. Living Media India Limited & Another, (2012) 3 SCC 563, that government departments are expected to act with diligence, that the law does not prescribe a different limitation period for the State, and that administrative processes do not automatically constitute sufficient cause for delay.

The respondents also cited Smt. Jyoti v. General Manager, MCC No. 591 of 2016, concerning the applicability of the Limitation Act to writ proceedings; however, the Court did not decide that question, and instead determined the application on the adequacy of the State’s explanation for delay.

Although the stated delay in the appeal was 40 days, the Court considered the State’s conduct in the full procedural context. The State waited almost a year after the original order before seeking the Advocate General’s opinion, did so after contempt proceedings had been initiated, and then followed a similar approval process before filing the appeal.

The Court held that the time taken for administrative approval did not explain the State’s lack of diligence and was not sufficient cause for condonation.

It dismissed I.A. No. 1 of 2026 and, consequently, dismissed the writ appeal as barred by limitation.