U.P. State’s Appeal Dismissed After 118-Day Delay; Allahabad HC Says File Movement Between Offices Was No Excuse

The State filed a special appeal on 27 October 2026 against the Single Judge’s judgment dated 30 April 2026 in Writ-A No. 4211 of 2026.

The Registry reported a delay of 118 days; the applicable limitation period was 30 days.

The State’s explanation referred to seeking a legal opinion, internal examination, departmental approvals, and subsequent communication of permission to appeal.

The Court noted that the proposal was sent to the State Government on 2 September 2026, permission was granted on 17 September 2026, communicated on 6 October 2026, and the appeal was filed on 27 October 2026.

The Court found the explanation vague and the administrative movement of the file insufficient to account for the delay.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 permits an appeal to be admitted after limitation only if the applicant establishes sufficient cause for the delay; a bona fide, plausible explanation supported by reasonable diligence may satisfy that test, whereas negligence, inaction, or a casual approach will not.

The special-appeal limitation period was 30 days under Chapter IX Rule 10 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, read with Article 117 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act.

Relying on Shivamma (Dead) by LRs. v. Karnataka Housing Board, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969, the Court held that limitation applies equally to the State and private litigants; bureaucratic procedures or administrative inefficiencies do not, without more, amount to sufficient cause, and the merits of the proposed appeal are irrelevant to the condonation inquiry.

The Court assessed the explanation by examining the State’s conduct during the period of delay.

It found unexplained gaps after the legal opinion was received on 22 July 2026, before the proposal was sent on 2 September 2026, and after permission was communicated on 6 October 2026, before filing on 27 October 2026.

The account showed correspondence and movement between offices but did not demonstrate reasonable diligence or a plausible, bona fide cause for the delay.

Applying Shivamma, the Court held that the State was not entitled to preferential treatment and that neither administrative processing nor the merits of the underlying matter could cure the deficient explanation.

Consequently, the special appeal was also dismissed.