Failure to provide satisfactory day-to-day explanation for delay renders a belated appeal liable to dismissal.

The Appellants (South Eastern Coalfields Limited) filed an intra-court appeal challenging the order dated December 2, 2025, passed by a Single Judge in WPS No. 13499 of 2025, which had disposed of a writ petition filed by Respondents No. 1 to 3

The appeal was filed with a delay of 37 days beyond the prescribed limitation period

Along with the appeal, the Appellants filed an application (I.A. No. 1) seeking condonation of this delay

1. Whether the delay of 37 days in filing the writ appeal should be condoned in the absence of a day-to-day explanation

2. Whether the appeal is liable to be entertained despite being barred by limitation and suffering from laches

The Court applied the principles regarding limitation and laches in service-related claims as settled by the Supreme Court of India.

It relied on Union of India Others v. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 652, which established that belated claims should generally be rejected on grounds of delay and laches unless they involve a "continuing wrong" that does not affect the settled rights of third parties

The Court further applied C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining and others (2008) 10 SCC 115, which holds that stale or time-barred claims can be rejected on the ground of limitation alone without examining merits, and that subsequent representations or routine court directions to "consider" such representations do not revive a dead cause of action

The Court scrutinized the application for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 1) and found that the Appellants failed to provide a satisfactory day-to-day explanation for the 37-day delay in filing the appeal

Referring to the precedents in Tarsem Singh and C. Jacob, the Court noted that condoning such delays without sufficient cause would encourage indiscipline and result in a drain on the public exchequer

The Court reasoned that since the Appellants failed to provide a "good ground" or a satisfactory explanation for the lapse of time, the doctrine of laches and the laws of limitation must strictly apply

The Court concluded that the appeal was stale and the delay could not be condoned simply through "misplaced sympathy"

Consequently, the Writ Appeal was dismissed without an inquiry into its merits