1 2025:CGHC:31154-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 449 of 2025 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Government, Of Chhattisgarh Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 Mahesh Kumbhkar S/o Kulpatram Occupation Service Shiksha Karmi Grade Ii, R/o Rikrapara, Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Now District Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai Chhattisgarh 2 Nagar Panchayat, Chhuikhadan, Through Its Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Now District Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai Chhattisgarh 3 Umakant Mahobiya S/o Palbhafra Mahobiya, R/o Mahobiya Para, Chhuikhadanm District Rajnandgaon Now District Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai Chhattisgarh 4 Ku. Kiran Mal, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Near Forest Naka, Dau Chouraha, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Now District Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.07.09 10:28:27 +0530 2 For Appellant / State : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Addl. A.G. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Mahendra Dubey, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 08.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Addl. A.G., learned counsel for the appellant/ State as well as Mr. Mahendra Dubey, Advocate and also Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan advocate for the respondents. 2. Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, learned Advocate present in the Court appears and submits that advance copy has been supplied to him by the appellant/ state but he has no instruction to appear as earlier writ appeal was filed by Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate. 3. Today the matter is listed on I.A. No. 02 i.e. application for condonation of delay in filing of the instant writ appeal. The appeal has been filed with delay of 1985 days. 4. It has been pointed out that the appeal is against the judgment passed by the learned single judge in WPS No. 3343 of 2009 which was decided on 21.11.2019. Against the said order a Writ 3 appeal No. 116/2020 was filed by the Nagar Panchayat Chhuikhadan which was disposed off by order dated 16.10.2023. 5. The present appeal is also filed against the same order passed by the learned single judge i.e. WPS No. 3343 of 2009 which was decided on 21.11.2019 which is filed with delay of 1985 days. 6. Perusal of the documents shows that the delay caused in filing the appeal has not been duly explained properly by assigning sufficient and cogent reasons. 7. It is the trite law that in the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, this court is posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the government or a wing of the government is a party before the court. 8. The Supreme Court in the matter of Postmaster General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Limited and Anr. Reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563 has held as under:- 28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on 4 account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government. 29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies. their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. 30. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates,, according to us, 5 the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay. 9. Hence we do not deem it fit to entertain this writ appeal. 10. Accordingly, I.A.No.2 is dismissed. Ergo, the appeal is also dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ $ Bhilwar