Chhattisgarh High Court refused to condone a 284-day delay, dismissing the State’s appeal for lack of sufficient cause

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 102 | 2026:CGHC:1863-DB

January 13, 2026 : The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a writ appeal filed by the State government after refusing to condone a delay of 284 days in approaching the court, holding that routine administrative explanations cannot justify missed statutory deadlines.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal rejected the State’s application for condonation of delay, observing that the government failed to show any “sufficient cause” for filing the appeal far beyond the prescribed limitation period.

The appeal was filed against a Single Bench judgment dated January 9, 2025, which had quashed the termination of Sanjay Kumar Singh Rathore, an employee of the Fisheries Department, and directed his reinstatement with consequential benefits. Rathore’s termination orders, issued in 1997 and 1998, along with a departmental appellate order passed in 2017, had earlier been set aside by the High Court.

Explaining the delay, the State submitted that multiple departmental approvals were required, including sanction from the Law and Legislative Affairs Department and appointment of an officer-in-charge. The government argued that procedural formalities and the functioning of a multi-layered administrative system led to the delay and that it was neither deliberate nor mala fide.

The Bench, however, was not persuaded. Relying on a series of Supreme Court rulings, including Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd. and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary, the Court reiterated that the law of limitation applies equally to the State and private litigants. The judges emphasized that bureaucratic red tape, file movement, and internal approvals are no longer acceptable explanations in an era of modern administrative systems.

The Court underlined that condonation of delay is an exception and not a vested right, particularly for government departments, which are under a heightened obligation to act with diligence. It noted that the State’s explanation merely narrated procedural steps without explaining why the appeal could not be filed within the limitation period.

Referring to recent Supreme Court guidance, the Bench cautioned constitutional courts against legitimizing “callous and lackadaisical” conduct by State authorities, stressing that judicial sympathy should not come at the cost of private litigants who have already endured prolonged litigation.

Finding no bona fide or convincing justification for the delay, the High Court refused to exercise its discretionary powers and dismissed the writ appeal at the threshold on the ground of delay and laches.

Case Reference : WA No. 2 of 2026: State of Chhattisgarh and Others vs Sanjay Kumar Singh Rathore; Counsel for the Appellant-State: Mr. Prasun Bhadhuri, Deputy Advocate General.