Unexplained inordinate delay in filing writ appeal warrants dismissal without examination of merits.

The Appellant (CSIDC) challenged an order dated 30.04.2024 passed by a Single Judge in WPC No. 2118/2016, which directed the Appellant to initiate land acquisition proceedings and pay compensation to the Respondents for land used to construct a road connecting NH-200 to Sector-D, Industrial Area, Bilaspur

The Writ Appeal was filed after an inordinate delay of 513 days

The State opposed the appeal on the grounds of delay and laches, asserting that the Appellant failed to provide cogent reasons for the delay in the condonation application

1. Whether the delay of 513 days in filing the writ appeal can be condoned in the absence of a plausible or cogent explanation

The Court applied the doctrine of limitation and the principles governing "delay and laches" in writ jurisdictions.

It relied on *Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2008)*, which establishes that belated claims should be rejected unless they involve a "continuing wrong" that does not affect the settled rights of third parties

It further cited *C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining (2008)*, which held that stale or time-barred representations cannot revive a dead claim or furnish a fresh cause of action, and that misplaced sympathy in condoning delay results in a drain on the public exchequer

The Court noted that the Appellant failed to offer any "plausible explanation" or "cogent reason" for the 513-day delay during the hearing

Applying the precedents from the Supreme Court, the Division Bench determined that the requirements for condoning such a significant lapse in time were not met because the grounds raised in the condonation application (I.A. No. 01) were insufficient

The Court emphasized that a routine condonation of delay without a proper legal basis would run contrary to the established legal position that stale claims should not be entertained

Consequently, I.A. No. 01 (application for condonation of delay) was rejected, and the Writ Appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation