- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41704-DB WA No. 1400 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1400 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPT. OF SPECIAL OFFICER, DEPT. OF HORTICULTURE, KRISHNA RAJENDRA GIRIDHAMA, CHIKKAMAGALURU 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.S. HARISH, GA) AND: 1. SMT. SHANTHAMMA, W/O LATE NARASIMHA, SHANKARAPURA, CHIKKAMAGALURU 2. KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSIONER FOR SAFAI KARMACHARIS, REPT., BY ITS SECRETARY, 4TH MAIN ROAD, Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41704-DB WA No. 1400 of 2025 16TH CROSS, S.R.NAGAR, BENGALURU-27 …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS, ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.03.2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU IN WP No-14806/2018 AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellants [State of Karnataka] has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 02.03.2023 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.14806/2018 after an inordinate delay of 826 days. The affidavit supporting the application for condonation of delay does not provide any credible explanation for the delay in filing the present appeal. It is stated that after the impugned judgment was rendered on 02.03.2023, the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41704-DB WA No. 1400 of 2025 concerned Government Advocate had furnished an opinion on 26.05.2023 that it was a fit case for filing an appeal. The said opinion was forwarded to the Head of the Legal Cell, Department of Horticulture. However, the affidavit is silent as to what steps were taken by the concerned officials thereafter. All that is stated is that after the opinion was forwarded to the Head of the Legal Cell Department of Horticulture, the Special Officer Department of Horticulture had issued a letter dated 10.07.2025 to file an appeal against impugned order. There is no explanation whatsoever as to the cause or reasons for the delay for over two years from 26.05.2023 to 10.07.2025. 2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Postmaster General and Others v. Living Media India Limited and Others : 2012(3) SCC 563 observed as under: "27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41704-DB WA No. 1400 of 2025 Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. 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 account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies 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 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." 3. Since in the present case, there is no reasons have been provided whatsoever for the inordinate delay period from 26.05.2023 to 10.07.2025, we are unable to accept that the delay in filing the present appeal ought to be condoned. The application - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41704-DB WA No. 1400 of 2025 is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as well. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE BS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22