MP HC Refuses To Condon State’s 480-Day Appeal Delay, Leaving 6% Interest Refund Order In Force

The State filed a writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, challenging the Single Judge’s order dated 25 September 2018 in W.P. No. 9185/2018, which had quashed a recovery order and directed refund with interest.

The appeal was accompanied by an application seeking condonation of a stated 480-day delay. The State attributed the delay to the order’s upload on the High Court website on 7 June 2024, subsequent legal opinion, approval to appeal on 28 February 2025, and the ensuing preparation and filing of the appeal.

The Court noted that the delay application had not previously been considered or allowed, so it heard the State on that threshold issue before addressing the questions earlier formulated by a Coordinate Bench.

Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, provides the statutory basis for the writ appeal.

The Court stated that until delay is condoned, there is no appeal “in the eye of law”; accordingly, the delay application must be decided before the appeal is considered on its merits.

The Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in State of M.P. v. Ramkumar Choudhary, SLP (C) Diary No. 48636/2024, as rejecting any supposed special privilege for the State as a litigant.

The State’s application relied on the administrative steps taken after the order was uploaded but, in the Court’s view, did not adequately justify the 480-day delay.

The Court noted that the State had taken no action against any officer responsible for the delay and that its counsel sought time to file a supplementary application but was unwilling to deposit costs.

In light of the length of the delay and those circumstances, the Court declined to condone it.

Because condonation was a threshold requirement, the Court did not address the substantive questions previously framed by the Coordinate Bench.

The questions formulated by the Coordinate Bench were left open for determination in an appropriate case; the dismissal was not to be treated as a final adjudication of those questions.