Writ appeal disposed of per precedent on review jurisdiction while exempting respondent from costs.

The appellant, Ajit Kumar Tiwari, filed a Writ Appeal (WA No. 106 of 2026) against the State of Chhattisgarh and the Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (CIDC).

Accompanying the appeal was I.A. No. 01/2026, an application seeking condonation of an 87-day delay in filing the appeal.

The Court allowed the application and condoned the delay.

The appellant contended that the subject matter of the appeal was identical to a previous matter decided by the same Division Bench on February 13, 2026, in Priya Devi v. State of Chhattisgarh and others (WA No. 127 of 2026).

The respondent State did not dispute this factual similarity.

1. Whether the instant Writ Appeal should be disposed of in accordance with the judgment delivered in Priya Devi v. State of Chhattisgarh and others (WA No. 127 of 2026).

2. Whether the punitive costs imposed on the respondent corporation (CIDC) in the Priya Devi case should be applied to the present matter.

Principle of judicial precedence and consistency, ensuring that identical legal issues are resolved through the same judicial reasoning established in prior contemporary judgments (specifically Priya Devi v. State of Chhattisgarh and others).

Duty of statutory corporations to act with "responsibility and fairness" and provide "due diligence" when assisting the Court.

The Court noted the consensus between the parties that the issues involved were squarely covered by the decision in WA No. 127 of 2026.

In the cited precedent (Priya Devi), the Court had scrutinized the conduct of the CIDC for failing to provide adequate instructions and relevant materials to the Writ Court, which resulted in avoidable review petitions and appeals.

While the Court in the present case agreed that the substantive merits of the appeal were identical to the precedent, it determined that the specific circumstances of the current appeal did not warrant the same financial penalty (costs) previously imposed on the CIDC in the Priya Devi matter.

The Court issued a specific holding that the directions regarding the imposition of costs (Rs. 50,000/-) against Respondent No. 2, as contained in paragraphs 17 and 18 of the Priya Devi judgment, shall not apply to the present case.