Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to externment appeals under the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam.

The appellant was served a show-cause notice under the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (“Adhiniyam”), culminating in an Externment Order dated 18.06.2025 by the District Magistrate, Balodabazar-Bhatapara, removing him from the district for one year.

The appellant preferred a statutory appeal under Section 9 of the Adhiniyam on 12.09.2025—approximately 50 days after the order, exceeding the prescribed 30-day limit.

The State Government dismissed the appeal as time-barred, and the High Court of Chhattisgarh subsequently dismissed the appellant's writ petition, holding that the delay was incapable of condonation under the statutory scheme.

Under Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, when a special or local law prescribes a limitation period different from the Schedule, the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 apply unless "expressly excluded" by such law.

The Court relied on Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra, establishing that "express exclusion" can be inferred via "necessary implication" by examining the scheme and nature of the special law.

The Court also affirmed that a right of appeal is a substantive remedial right (Sita Ram v. State of U.P.) and rules of limitation should not destroy rights unless strictly mandated (N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy).

The Court observed that Section 9 of the Adhiniyam prescribes a 30-day period but lacks restrictive terminology such as "but not thereafter" or "not exceeding," which would otherwise signal an absolute outer limit.

Unlike the Arbitration Act or the Electricity Act, the Adhiniyam does not provide a fixed "grace period" for condonation, nor does it create a self-contained code that renders the authority functus officio after 30 days.

Furthermore, Section 9(4) expressly incorporates the principle of excluding time for obtaining certified copies, indicating the legislature did not intend to insulate the Act from the general law of limitation.

The Court emphasized that externment orders carry "serious civil consequences" affecting fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21, requiring a purposive interpretation that preserves the right of appeal.

The Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, condoned the delay in filing the appeal, and restored the appeal before the State Government; the State Government was directed to decide the appeal on its merits by 15.06.2026.