Condonation of delay refused in absence of plausible explanation or cogent reasons for inordinate filing delay.

The Appellant (CSIDC) challenged an order dated 30.04.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge in WPC No. 1014/2016.

The Single Judge had directed the Appellant to initiate land acquisition proceedings and pay compensation to the respondents for land used to construct a road connecting NH-200 to Sector-D, Industrial Area, Bilaspur.

The Appellant filed this writ appeal after a delay of 149 days.

The State opposed the appeal on the grounds of limitation and lack of sufficient cause for the delay.

1. Whether the Appellant provided a "sufficient cause" or "plausible explanation" to condone the inordinate delay of 149 days in filing the writ appeal.

The Court applied the doctrine of laches and limitation as interpreted by the Supreme Court of India.

It relied on *Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2008)*, which establishes that while continuing wrongs may allow for delayed claims, such claims are barred if they affect the settled rights of third parties or if the delay renders the claim stale.

It further applied *C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining (2008)*, which held that representations regarding stale or time-barred matters do not revive a dead cause of action and that courts should not encourage such claims through "misplaced sympathy," which results in a drain on the public exchequer.

The Court scrutinized the Appellant's application for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 01) and noted that the counsel failed to offer any "plausible explanation" or "cogent reason" for the 149-day delay.

Following the principles in *Tarsem Singh* and *C. Jacob*, the Court reasoned that the law of limitation must be applied strictly where no valid justification for laches is presented.

Since the Appellant failed to meet the threshold of proving sufficient cause, the Court found no grounds to exercise its discretionary power to condone the delay, emphasizing that reviving stale claims is a "travesty of justice."

Consequently, I.A. No. 01 for condonation of delay was rejected, and the writ appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.