Unexplained delay cannot be condoned absent cogent proof of sufficient cause, regardless of litigant status.

The appellants challenged an interim order dated 25 February 2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 865 of 2026, Gram Panchayat Tamnar v. State of Chhattisgarh, by filing the present writ appeal.

The appeal was instituted with a delay of 104 days, and the appellants filed I.A. No. 1 of 2026 seeking condonation of that delay. On being specifically queried, the appellants’ counsel failed to provide a plausible explanation or cogent reason for the delay. The State opposed condonation, contending that the appeal was barred by delay and laches and that no sufficient cause had been established.

Whether the appellants had shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 104 days in filing the writ appeal?

Whether the writ appeal could be entertained on merits despite the unexplained delay and absence of diligence or bona fides?

The Court applied the principle that condonation of delay is discretionary and requires the applicant to establish a reasonable, adequate, and sufficient cause preventing timely institution of proceedings.

In Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd., (2012) 3 SCC 563, the Supreme Court held that limitation binds government bodies equally and that bureaucratic delay, procedural red tape, or the status of the litigant cannot justify mechanical condonation of delay.

Relying on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary, 2024 INSC 932, and the principles stated in Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ajit Singh Thakur Singh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1981 SC 733, the Court held that negligence, inaction, lack of bona fides, or absence of diligence defeats a plea of sufficient cause; the cause preventing filing must arise within the prescribed limitation period, and subsequent events cannot retrospectively explain the initial default.

Delay is not to be condoned merely as an act of generosity or in the name of substantial justice where it prejudices the opposing party.

The appellants’ application did not explain why the appeal could not be filed within the applicable limitation period and did not disclose any circumstance constituting sufficient cause. The Court treated the 104-day delay as unexplained and found no plausible or cogent reason demonstrating diligence or bona fides.

Applying the Supreme Court’s rule that limitation applies equally to all litigants and that condonation cannot be claimed as a matter of right or privilege, the Court concluded that the appellants had failed to satisfy the threshold requirement for exercising discretion in their favour.

Since condonation was refused, the Court did not examine the merits of the writ appeal.

Consequently, the writ appeal was dismissed as barred by delay and laches.

The appellants were, however, granted liberty to make a mention before the concerned Bench seized of the underlying matter for its early disposal.