Government delay in filing appeals cannot be condoned without plausible explanation for procedural red-tape and lethargy.

The Appellants (State of Chhattisgarh and industrial departments) sought to challenge a Single Judge’s order dated 16.10.2024 passed in WPC No. 1782/2013

The Respondent company had sought compliance of the said order on 19.02.2025. Following a series of administrative procedures, including inter-departmental correspondence, seeking legal opinions from the Advocate General, and the eventual appointment of an Officer-in-Charge on 28.11.2025, the writ appeal was filed with a significant delay

The Appellants filed I.A. No. 01 of 2025 seeking condonation of a 379-day delay in preferring the appeal

1. Whether the administrative "red-tape" and procedural movements of files within government departments constitute "sufficient cause" for condoning a 379-day delay in filing an appeal

2. Whether the court should exercise discretionary power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone inordinate delay when the State is the applicant

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (successive to the 1908 Act) regarding the condonation of delay upon showing "sufficient cause"

Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd. (2012), which established that the government cannot claim a separate period of limitation or cite "bureaucratic methodology" as an excuse for delay

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary (2024), which mandates that "sufficient cause" must be proved with rigor and that negligence or inaction precludes condonation

Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board (2025), which cautioned Courts against becoming "surrogates for State laxity"

The Court examined the timeline provided by the Appellants, noting that the sequence of events—ranging from seeking opinions to appointing an Officer-in-Charge—lacked specificity and failed to justify the 379-day gap

The Court observed that while a liberal approach may be taken in cases of bona fide mistakes, the law of limitation binds the Government equally to private litigants

Following the "Sword of Damocles" principle referenced in Ramkumar Choudhary, the Court reasoned that the Respondent should not be kept in indefinite uncertainty due to the State's callous attitude and procedural lethargy

The Court found that the Appellants failed the "vital test" of reasonable diligence, as the explanation offered was merely a chronological list of administrative steps rather than a valid legal impediment that prevented filing within the prescribed 90 days

Consequently, the Court refused to exercise its discretionary power to condone the delay, stating that State departments have a special obligation to perform duties with diligence. The application for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 01 of 2025) was rejected, and the writ appeal was dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches