MP HC Rejects State’s Appeal After It Took Two Months to Approach Counsel, Leaving the 58-Day Delay Unexplained

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 18 December 2025 in W.P. No. 7101/2016.

The appeal was delayed by 58 days, and the State sought condonation.

Its application stated that it wrote to the Office of the Additional Advocate General, Gwalior, on 23 February 2026; the matter reached the Chief Engineer’s office on 17 March 2026; and permission to appeal was granted on 11 May 2026.

The State did not explain the delay before approaching the Additional Advocate General or the period between 17 March and 11 May 2026.

It also submitted that the case was covered by Ram Vishal Pateriya v. State of M.P. and Others, but that an SLP against that decision was pending.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 permits condonation where “sufficient cause” is established; although the provision allows a justice-oriented approach, a distinction must be drawn between a genuine explanation and a mere excuse.

Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji and G. Ramegowda v. Land Acquisition Officer recognize that some latitude may be appropriate for governmental decision-making, while maintaining that the Government remains responsible for its officers’ acts and omissions.

State of M.P. v. Ramkumar Choudhary emphasizes accountability for official lapses causing delay.

The mere pendency of an SLP, particularly where notice has not issued, does not by itself warrant entertaining an appeal.

The Court found the State’s account inadequate because it left unexplained both the initial delay of approximately two months before contacting the Additional Advocate General and the subsequent period from 17 March to 11 May 2026.

The stated administrative steps therefore did not amount to a plausible explanation for the full delay.

Nor did the pending SLP provide a basis to entertain the appeal, since no notice had been issued in it and the case was covered by the decision in Ram Vishal Pateriya.

Applying the principles on sufficient cause and governmental delay, the Court held that the delay was not condonable.

Consequently, it dismissed the writ appeal as barred by time.