Government departments receive no special privilege for unexplained delay in filing appeals.

The State of Chhattisgarh and its officers filed a writ appeal challenging the order dated 07.09.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 872 of 2021, by which the respondent’s writ petition was disposed of, as well as the order dated 03.07.2025 in REVP No. 07 of 2026 dismissing the review petition.

The appellants also filed I.A. No. 02 of 2026 seeking condonation of a delay of 310 days in filing the writ appeal.

Upon being questioned, the appellants’ counsel could not provide any plausible or cogent explanation for the delay.

The respondent opposed the application, contending that the appeal was barred by delay and laches and that no sufficient cause had been shown.

Whether the appellants had shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 310 days in filing the writ appeal?

Whether the writ appeal could be entertained on merits despite the unexplained delay?

The Court applied the principle that limitation binds all litigants, including the Government, and that condonation of delay is an exception requiring a plausible, cogent, and acceptable explanation based on sufficient cause.

Relying on Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd., (2012) 3 SCC 563, the Court held that governmental departments cannot rely mechanically on bureaucratic red tape, file movement, or impersonal machinery to justify delay, and are under a special obligation to act with diligence and commitment.

Relying on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary, 2024 INSC 932, and the principles in Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, the Court reiterated that negligence, inaction, lack of bona fides, or failure to act diligently defeats a plea of sufficient cause.

The Court further applied the principle that the cause preventing filing must arise within the original limitation period; subsequent events cannot explain why limitation was initially allowed to expire.

It also relied on Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy, 2024 INSC 262, for the proposition that delay cannot be condoned as a matter of generosity and that substantial justice cannot be invoked to prejudice the opposing party.

The Court found that the appellants had failed to explain the 310-day delay with any cogent or plausible reason.

Since the appellants were governmental authorities, they were subject to the same law of limitation as private litigants and could not claim a relaxed or automatic approach merely because of their status.

Applying the Supreme Court’s requirement of reasonable diligence and bona fide conduct, the Court concluded that the unexplained delay disclosed negligence or inaction rather than sufficient cause.

As the threshold requirement for condonation was not satisfied, the Court held that it was unnecessary to examine the merits of the underlying writ dispute.

Consequently, the writ appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation, without consideration of the merits of the controversy.