1 2025:CGHC:60482-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 923 of 2025 Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited Through Its Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, 1st Floor, Telibandha, Raipur Chhattisgarh - 492006 (Respondent No. 2, In The Writ Petition ) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Rajendra Prasad Jaiswal S/o Late Ganesh Prasad Jaiswal Aged About 62 Years R/o Shankar Bhawan, Old High Court Road Opposite State Bank Of India, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Petitioner In The Writ Petition ) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department, Of Udhyog Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur , P.S. Rakhi District- Raipur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 1 In The Writ Petition)] 3 - Sub Divisional Officer Revenue Cum Land Acquisition Officer Bilaspur Tahsil And District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 3 In The Writ Petition ) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. and Mr. Nishant Bhanushali, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.12.12 17:14:11 +0530 2 Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 12.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. Kashif Shakeel, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Nishant Bhanushali, counsel for respective respondents. 2. The present writ appeal is preferred assailing the order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 1668/2016 (Rajendra Prasad Jaiswal vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), whereby, the writ petition filed by the appellant/respondent No.1 herein was allowed by the learned Single Judge. 3. It has been pointed out by learned counsel, appearing for the appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WA No. 815/2025 (State of Chhattisgarh and Another vs. Rajendra Prasad Jaiswal and Another) vide order dated 11.11.2025, observing as follows : “7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the light of aforementioned judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Postmaster General (supra) and Ramkumar Choudhary (supra), it is evident that Government departments are under a special obligation to discharge their duties with due diligence and 3 commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception, not the rule, and cannot be claimed as a matter of right or anticipated privilege by Government entities. The law casts its protection equally upon all litigants and cannot be distorted to confer undue advantage upon a select few. 8. Very recently on 12.09.2025, the Supreme Court in the matter of Shivamma (dead) by LRS Vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors., 2025 INSC 1104 categorically held that the High Courts ought not give a legitimizing effect to such callous attitude of State authorities or its instrumentalities, and should remain extra cautious, if the party seeking condonation of delay is a State- authority. They should not become surrogates for State laxity and lethargy. The constitutional courts ought to be cognizant of the apathy and pangs of a private litigant. 9. Upon considering the matter in its entirety and also applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, we find that the State has failed to provide any proper or satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the present appeal. The only reason cited is that the Law & Legislative Affairs Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, had forwarded a proposal to the Office of the Advocate General for initiating an appeal against the impugned order dated 30.04.2024. Thereafter, the case was processed, and the present petition was ultimately filed. However, this sequence of events, lacking in specificity or justifiable cause, does not amount to a cogent or acceptable explanation. Thus, the State has miserably failed to demonstrate sufficient 4 cause warranting the condonation of an inordinate delay of 500 days. 10. Consequently, we are not inclined to exercise our discretionary power under the law to condone such extraordinary delay. The learned counsel for the State has not been able to establish any convincing or bona fide reason for the delay. Therefore, there is no justification for condoning the delay of 500 days in filing the writ appeal. 11. In view of the above, the writ appeal is hereby dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.” They further submit that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 815/2025, this appeal may also be dismissed in the same terms. 4. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to WA No. 815/2025, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No. 815/2025. 5. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 11.11.2025 passed in WA No. 815/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet