1 CGHC010373272026 2026:CGHC:43830-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 974 of 2026 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Commissioner, Department Of Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe Development, Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Department, Balod District Balod (C.G.) ... Appellants versus 1 - Nandram Thakur S/o Shri Nathlu Ram Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Baihakunwa, P/s Doundi Lohara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh 2 - Mukesh Kumar S/o. Tumanlal Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Bijora, P/s Doundi Lohara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Devnath S/o Shri Sukhiram Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Khamhartola, P/s Dallirajhara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh., 4 - Khemuram S/o Shri Samlu Ram Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Armurkasa, P/s Dallirajhara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Shiv Thakur S/o Shri Jeet Ram Thakur Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Khaira, P/s Doundi Lohara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Chandu Lal Mankar S/o Shri Kirtan Lal Mankar Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Badejugera, P/s Doundi Lohara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Sahdev Ram Thakur S/o Shri Latkhor Ram Thakur Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Andi, P/s Doundi Lohara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. 8 - Sanjay Kumar S/o Rajmahal Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Raigarh, P/s Doundi Lohara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. 9 - Smt. Shalendri Bai W/o Maya Ram Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Baihakunwa, P/s Doundi Lohara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2026.10.09 18:14:35 +0530 2 10 - Bharat Tekam S/o Shri Tularam Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Doundi, P/s Doundi, District Balod Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellants/State : Mr. Prasoon Bhaduri, Dy. Advocate General For Respondents No.1 to 7, 9 & 10 : Ms. Shriyadeep Gupta, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Krushna Ram Mohapatra, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Santosh Sharma, Judge Order on Board Per : Krushna Ram Mohapatra, Chief Justice 09.10.2026 1. Heard Mr. Prasoon Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the appellants/State. Also heard Ms. Shriyadeep Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. I.A. No. 1 of 2026, this is an application for condonation of delay of 40 days in filing the writ appeal. 3. The State of Chhattisgarh and two others as appellants have filed this intra-Court appeal against the order dated 23.06.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in Review Petition No. 174 of 2026, by which the review petition was dismissed confirming order dated 02.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 5401 of 2017 filed by the respondents. 4. Mr. Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/appellants, submits that the delay is only 40 days in filing the writ appeal. Delay occurred due to period consumed in obtaining administrative approval to file the writ appeal. He drew attention to paragraph-4 of the application for condonation of delay. It is submitted that after the judgment dated 02.05.2025 was passed by learned Single Judge, the Department, by 3 its order dated 25.03.2026, sought for an opinion from the Office of the learned Advocate General. Such opinion was given on 07-08.04.2026 by the Office of learned Advocate General. Thereafter, the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs, Government of Chhattisgarh was moved to grant necessary permission to file review petition. Such permission / sanction was granted vide order dated 05.05.2026 and the review petition was filed on 22.05.2026. He further submits that similar procedure was adopted for filing the writ appeal. In the process 40 days delay occurred in filing the writ appeal. As such, delay in filing of the writ appeal is bonafide and not intentional. Since the appellants have fair chance of success in the writ appeal, the delay of 40 days in filing the writ appeal should be condoned and the appeal be heard on merit. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently objects to the same and submits that a detailed objection has been filed by the respondents. Referring to the objection, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the review petition itself was filed approximately one year and three months after the judgment was passed by the learned Single Judge. As provisions of Limitation Act is not applicable to the writ petitions and proceedings arising therefrom in view of order passed in Smt. Jyoti vs. General Manager in MCC No. 591 of 2016 disposed of on 13.12.2016, the review petition was heard on merit and was dismissed. The explanation given by the State Government for condonation of delay are mere excuses. The opinion of learned Advocate General to file a review petition was sought for after almost one year. Further, the delay of 40 days in filing the writ appeal has not been explained in the application for condonation of delay. Period consumed in obtaining administrative approval cannot be a ground for condonation of delay as held in Postmaster General & Others vs. Living Media India 4 Limited & Another, (2012) 3 SCC 563, wherein it is held that Government Departments / Public Sector Undertakings are under a special obligation to discharge their duties with due diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception, not the rule, and cannot be claimed as a matter of right or anticipated privilege by the Government Entities / Public Sector Undertakings. The law casts its protection equally upon all litigants and cannot be distorted to confer undue advantage upon a select few. 6. It is submitted that the State Government in order to avoid rigors of the contempt proceedings, sought for opinion of the learned Advocate General to file review petition and being unsuccessful therein, to file the writ appeal. The contempt petition is still pending for consideration. Since the State Government and its authorities were at laches in performing their duties and not at all diligent in filing the writ appeal, the delay should not be condoned. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the application for condonation of delay as well as the case law cited. 8. Admittedly, the order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 02.05.2025, but the State of Chhattisgarh maintained a sphinx like silence for almost a one year to seek for opinion of learned Advocate General to file a review petition which was sought for only on 25.03.2026, that too after initiation of contempt proceeding, i.e. almost one year after. The Office of learned Advocate General gave its opinion on 07-08.04.2026. Thereafter, the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs, Government of Chhattisgarh was moved to grant necessary sanction to file the review petition which was sanctioned on 05.05.2026. 9. The review petition was filed on 22.05.2026 and was dismissed as not maintainable vide order dated 23.06.2026. Thereafter, the State Government adopted the similar procedure for filing the present writ appeal. By the time 5 the writ appeal was filed, more than one year had elapsed in challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 5401 of 2017. Although, technically, there is a delay of 40 days in filing the writ appeal, but it appears that the State of Chhattisgarh was not at all diligent in exercising its right either to file a review petition or to file the present writ appeal within a reasonable period. 10. Period consumed in obtaining administrative approval cannot be a ground to condone the delay. The Government has a robust mechanism manned by experts. Thus, delay in moving the higher forums / Courts should be viewed seriously. Law does not provide a different limitation period for the State Government; the period of limitation is same for all. Our opinion gets support from the judgment in Postmaster General (supra). 11. The so-called explanation given in the application for condonation of delay are mere excuses, much less any sufficient cause for condonation of delay. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the application for condonation of delay, which is devoid of any merit. 12. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay, i.e. I.A. No. 1 of 2026, stands dismissed. Consequently, the writ appeal also stands dismissed being barred by limitation. Sd/- Sd/- (Santosh Sharma) (Krushna Ram Mohapatra) Judge Chief Justice Bini