The High Court of Chhattisgarh has reaffirmed that the law of limitation applies equally to government departments, and that condonation of delay cannot be claimed as a matter of right or anticipated privilege by public authorities. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, in its recent ruling, emphasised that government entities have a special obligation to act with diligence and cannot rely on bureaucratic delays or red-tapism as a blanket justification for filing appeals beyond the prescribed limitation period.
The case involved an appeal filed by the State of Chhattisgarh which was delayed by 107 days beyond the limitation period. The State contended that the delay was bona fide, citing the need to complete several formalities and the complex functioning of multiple governmental offices. It argued that being a multi-functional administrative machinery entailed inherent delays, and thus the appeal should be admitted despite the belated filing. In its judgment, the Court rejected this reasoning, observing that the State had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The Court noted that the only explanation offered was a series of departmental steps — the forwarding of a proposal by the Law & Legislative Affairs Department to the Advocate General’s Office — without detailing why those steps could not have been taken within time. The High Court held that such vague references to bureaucratic processes did not amount to “sufficient cause” and thus the discretionary power to condone the delay was not exercised.
In its reasoning, the Court drew on precedents of the Supreme Court affirming that the law of limitation is founded on public policy and applies uniformly to all litigants, including the State. It held that the doctrine of limitation is not a mere procedural technicality, but an instrument of justice, ensuring certainty and preventing stale claims. The Court underlined that allowing governments to routinely seek condonation would undermine the legislative purpose of limitation statutes and create unequal treatment between private and public litigants.
Furthermore, the bench remarked that government departments cannot expect an automatic indulgence for delay purely on account of inherited administrative or procedural burden. Even in the age of modern communication and electronic records, the argument of systemic red-tape and delay does not automatically justify belated action. The High Court thus reiterated the established principle that applications for condonation of delay must be supported by credible, specific and concrete reasons explaining why the appeal could not be filed on time, and not by general pleas of procedural work or internal administrative steps.
In conclusion, the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay and laches, declining to condone the 107-day delay in filing. The ruling serves as a clear message that government entities are bound by the same limitation regime as other parties, and that condonation remains an exceptional relief, not a routine entitlement.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.