Inordinate delay of 513 days without cogent explanation warrants dismissal of writ appeal.

The Appellant (CSIDC) challenged an order dated 30.04.2024 passed by a Single Judge in WPC No. 2116/2016.

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 513 days.

The State opposed the appeal on the grounds of limitation and lack of cogent explanation for the delay.

1. Whether the inordinate delay of 513 days in filing the writ appeal can be condoned in the absence of a plausible or cogent explanation.

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 relief is restricted if it affects settled rights or if the claim is stale.

It further applied *C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining (2008)*, which holds that representations regarding stale matters or dead claims cannot revive a cause of action, and courts should not exercise "misplaced sympathy" to encourage indiscipline or drain the public exchequer when a party fails to act within a reasonable time.

The Court scrutinized the Appellant’s application for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 01) and found that the Appellant failed to offer any "plausible explanation" or "cogent reason" for the 513-day delay.

Applying the principles from *Tarsem Singh* and *C. Jacob*, the Court reasoned that the law of limitation must be strictly applied unless sufficient cause is shown.

Since the Appellant remained silent for an inordinate period without justification, the Court determined that the claim had become stale and did not warrant the exercise of discretionary power to condone the delay.

Consequently, the Court rejected I.A. No. 01 (application for condonation of delay) and dismissed the Writ Appeal as barred by limitation.