Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

Order Date: 01.07.2026

Case Overview

  • Parties:
  • Petitioners: State of Chhattisgarh (through Secretary, Ministry of Higher and Technical Education, Man Power Deployment, Science and Technology, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur; Commissioner Higher Education Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh; Deputy Director Higher Education Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh) and D.P. Vipra College (through its Principal).
  • Respondent: Dr. (Smt.) Sunanda Tijare, W/o Shri Yashwant Krishna Rao Tijare, aged about 67 years, Assistant Professor (Retd.), D.P. Vipra College, Bilaspur.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Application for condonation of delay (I.A. No.01 of 2026) seeking permission to file an appeal against the order dated 20‑08‑2024 passed by this Court in WPS No.1663/2022 and related matters.
  • Background: The State obtained the impugned order and related documents, but due to alleged departmental formalities the appeal was filed 586 days after the prescribed limitation period. The State relied on State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani (1996) to argue bonafide delay.
  • Opposition Argument: Respondent counsel highlighted that similar writ appeals filed earlier were dismissed by this Court on 25‑08‑2023, and the State’s Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court was dismissed on 07‑11‑2025 for delay.
  • Legal Issues: Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applies to filing an appeal against a writ Court order and whether the State can be granted condonation of a 586‑day delay.
  • Supreme Court Precedents Cited:

1. Postmaster General & Others v. Living Media India Ltd (2012) – emphasized that government departments must provide a plausible explanation; delay cannot be condoned mechanically.

2. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary (2024) – reiterated the need for “sufficient cause” and that negligence or lack of bona‑fide effort defeats condonation.

3. Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (2024) – stressed that delay should not be excused as generosity; substantial justice must not prejudice the opposite party.

4. Shivamma (dead) by LRS Vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors. (2025) – warned High Courts against giving a legitimising effect to State laxity.

  • Additional Observation: The Court noted a separate, even larger delay of 1,788 days in preferring a second appeal concerning valuable Government lands, and directed the State to streamline its legal machinery and hold responsible officers accountable for losses caused.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court dismissed the State’s application for condonation of the 586‑day delay, holding that no sufficient cause was demonstrated.
  • The appeal is dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches, with reference to the earlier Supreme Court dismissal of the State’s SLP on 07‑11‑2025.
  • No order as to costs was made.
  • The Court directed the State to improve its legal handling processes and to penalise any officer responsible for the 1,788‑day delay in the related appeal.

Topics: Condensation of Delay, Limitation Act