News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 103 | 2026:CGHC:1857-DB
January 13, 2026 : The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a writ appeal filed by the State government after finding no sufficient justification for a 45-day delay in approaching the court. The Division Bench held that routine administrative procedures and internal file movement cannot be treated as valid grounds for condoning delay, particularly when the State is the litigant.
The appeal arose from an order passed on September 4, 2025, in a long-pending service matter. The State sought condonation of delay, arguing that time was lost due to departmental approvals, receipt of certified copies, and procedural formalities within the government machinery. The Bench, however, rejected this explanation as vague and unconvincing.
Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, writing for the court, noted that government departments are under a special obligation to act with diligence and promptness. The court relied heavily on a series of Supreme Court decisions which have consistently held that the law of limitation applies equally to the State and private litigants, and that delay cannot be condoned mechanically merely because the government is a party.
Referring to precedents such as Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd. and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary, the Bench observed that expressions like “bureaucratic delay” or “administrative process” do not amount to “sufficient cause” under limitation law. The judgment reiterated that condonation of delay is an exception and not a matter of right.
The court also echoed recent Supreme Court observations cautioning High Courts against legitimizing laxity on the part of State authorities. It stressed that courts should not act as surrogates for government inefficiency, particularly when private litigants are forced to endure prolonged uncertainty due to delayed appeals.
Finding no bona fide or plausible explanation for the delay, the High Court declined to exercise its discretionary power and dismissed the writ appeal at the threshold on the ground of delay and laches. No order as to costs was passed.
Case Reference : WA No. 985 of 2025, State of Chhattisgarh, Secretary to the Hon’ble Governor, Rajbhawan, Raipur v. Kuber Kumar Arya; for the appellants: Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate General; for the respondent: Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate.
