News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 108 | 2026:CGHC:2947-DB
January 19, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has dismissed a writ appeal filed by the State of Chhattisgarh after refusing to condone a delay of 210 days in approaching the court, holding that the government failed to offer any plausible or satisfactory explanation for the delay.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal was hearing the State’s challenge to a March 18, 2025 order of a Single Judge, which had allowed writ petitions filed by 19 instructors working in various government Industrial Training Institutes across the Bastar region. The instructors had earlier secured relief against the state authorities in service-related disputes.
At the outset, the Bench examined the State’s application seeking condonation of delay in filing the writ appeal. When queried by the court, the State was unable to provide any cogent reason explaining why the appeal was filed more than seven months after the impugned order. The judges noted that the explanation offered was vague and did not disclose sufficient cause to justify such an inordinate delay.
Counsel appearing for the instructors opposed the application, arguing that the appeal was clearly barred by delay and laches and that entertaining it would undermine settled legal principles governing belated service claims.
While rejecting the State’s plea, the Bench relied on settled Supreme Court jurisprudence on delay and laches, including rulings that emphasize courts should not entertain stale claims unless a continuing wrong is shown and third-party rights are not affected. The judges observed that mere filing of representations or internal administrative processing cannot revive a dead or time-barred cause of action.
The court concluded that the State had failed to demonstrate any grounds warranting the exercise of judicial discretion in its favour. As a result, the application seeking condonation of delay was rejected. Consequently, the writ appeal itself stood dismissed without examination of the merits of the case.
The dismissal effectively upholds the Single Judge’s order granting relief to the ITI instructors and brings the State’s challenge to an end on procedural grounds.
Case Reference : WA No. 23 of 2026, State of Chhattisgarh and Others v. Sunil Kumar Prajapati and Others; for the appellants: Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General; for respondent No. 1: Ms. Manubha Shankar, holding brief for Mr. Harshwardhan Parghania, Advocate.
