Chhattisgarh HC Dismisses State’s Appeal As Time-Barred, Rejecting 34-Day Delay Plea After Year-Long Wait To Seek Review

In brief

The question

Whether the State had shown sufficient cause to condone the 34-day delay in filing the writ appeal.

The court held

The Court held that the State had not established sufficient cause to condone the delay.

It also directed

It dismissed I.A. No. 2 of 2026 and consequently dismissed the writ appeal as barred by limitation, without considering the appeal on its merits.

01Facts

The State and its officers appealed against the order dated 30 June 2026 dismissing their review petition, which had sought review of an order dated 2 May 2025 in WPS No. 5147 of 2017.

¶ 3, 9

The State sought condonation of a 34-day delay in filing the writ appeal, attributing it to time taken for administrative approval.

¶ 4–6

The respondents opposed condonation, pointing to the State’s delay in first seeking an opinion on review and its lack of diligence.

¶ 4–6

The High Court considered the condonation application and the parties’ submissions.

¶ 7

02Issues

i.Whether the State had shown sufficient cause to condone the 34-day delay in filing the writ appeal.

¶ 4–5, 11

ii.Whether time taken to obtain administrative approval, in the circumstances, justified condoning the delay.

¶ 9–10

03Law Applied

The Court relied on Postmaster General & Others v. Living Media India Limited & Another, (2012) 3 SCC 563, for the principle that government departments must act with due diligence and commitment, and that condonation of delay is an exception rather than a matter of right or privilege for government entities.

¶ 5, 10

It also stated that administrative approval is not, by itself, a ground for condonation, and that the State is subject to the same limitation period as other litigants.

¶ 10

The respondents referred to Smt. Jyoti v. General Manager, MCC No. 591 of 2016, concerning the applicability of the Limitation Act to writ proceedings; the Court did not separately determine that question in deciding this application.

¶ 5

04Reasoning

Although the stated delay in filing the appeal was 34 days, the Court considered the State’s conduct in the broader procedural context.

¶ 8–9

The State had waited nearly a year after the Single Judge’s order before seeking an opinion on filing a review petition, and the review petition was filed only after the required approval was obtained; following its dismissal, the State used a similar approval process to pursue the appeal.

¶ 8–9

The Court found the State had not acted diligently in pursuing either remedy within a reasonable period.

¶ 10–11

Applying Postmaster General, it held that the administrative-approval explanation was insufficient and that the application offered excuses rather than sufficient cause.

¶ 10–11