Facts
The State of Chhattisgarh (Appellants) filed a Writ Appeal against an order dated 21.11.2025 involving retired government employees (Respondents)
Source reference: p. 2, 11The appeal was filed with a delay of 66 days
Source reference: p. 2The State filed I.A. No. 02 of 2025 for condonation of delay, citing administrative procedures, inter-departmental consultations with the Law Department, and multiple levels of approval as the primary reasons for the lapse in time
Source reference: p. 2, 11Issues
1. Whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act apply to the application for condonation of delay and whether the State provided "sufficient cause" for the 66-day delay
Source reference: p. 2, para. 3Law Applied
Section 5 of the Limitation Act
Source reference: p. 3, para. 4Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd. (2012), which held that government departments cannot claim a separate period of limitation or rely on bureaucratic "red-tape" as a valid excuse
Source reference: p. 3, para. 4State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary (2024), emphasizing that "sufficient cause" must be established based on circumstances arising within the limitation period, and that delay should not be excused as a matter of generosity
Source reference: p. 4-10, para. 5Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board (2025), stating that courts must not become surrogates for State laxity
Source reference: p. 10, para. 7Reasoning
The court examined the State’s justification for the 66-day delay, which was attributed to "administrative procedures" and "inter-departmental consultations"
Source reference: p. 2, 11Applying the Living Media and Ramkumar Choudhary standards, the court found these explanations to be "the usual explanation" and indicative of a "callous and lackadaisical attitude"
Source reference: p. 3, 8-11The court reasoned that the State failed to demonstrate a bona fide effort or provide a cogent reason that prevented filing within the prescribed 90-day window
Source reference: p. 10-11The court noted that condonation is an exception and that the Law Department/State machinery is under a special obligation to perform duties with diligence rather than anticipating benefits of procedural delay
Source reference: p. 3-4, 10Holding
The court answered the issue in the negative, holding that the State failed to provide "sufficient cause" or a satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay
Consequently, the High Court refused to exercise its discretionary power to condone the delay. The application for condonation of delay was rejected, and the Writ Appeal was dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches
Source reference: p. 11, para. 10Original Court PDF
STATE OF CHHATTISGARHvsRAMPRASAD SINGH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in