1 2026:HHC:4977 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMP(M) 81 of 2026 a/w LPA No. 86 of 2026 Date of decision: 27.02.2026 ________________________________________________________ H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. & another …..Appellants Versus M/s Atlas Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. & others …Respondents ________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ________________________________________________________ For the Appellants: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mohit Sankhyan, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) The present application has been filed for condoning the delay of 559 days in filing the appeal against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 1247 of 2022, titled as M/s Atlas Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and others, dated 10.05.2024. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. The writ petition was disposed of in view of the earlier judgment passed in CWP No. 2585 of 2024, titled as M/s Pure & Cure Healthcare Private Limited versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited, by the learned Single Judge. 3. It is a matter of record that LPA No. 560 of 2025, titled as HPSEB Ltd. Vs. M/s Pure & Cure Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., challenging the aforesaid judgment in CWP No. 2585 of 2024 was decided on 27.11.2025, giving reasons in the said order, to uphold the order. 4. It is settled principle that the applicants/appellants have to make out a case for condoning the delay. 5. Unfortunately, there is not even a single averment made in the application, which would go on to show the reasons which had led to inordinate delay in filing the appeal, which nowhere finds mention. The merits of the case have also been incorporated in the application. The only exceptional cause for delay in filing the appeal, which is sought to be made out, reads as under:- 3 “4. That immediately after pronouncement of the impugned judgment, certified copies were obtained, and the matter was placed before the Executive Director (Pers.) and Law Cell of HPSEBL for scrutiny. Since HPSEBL is a statutory public utility undertaking, movement of files involves multiple tiers of approval-field division, Circle Office, Chief Engineer (Operations), and Board Head Office-before any decision to file an appeal is finalised.” 6. Perusal of the file would go on to show that the certified copy of the judgment was applied after a period of one year and five months, i.e. on 29.10.2025 and the Office delivered the same on 18.11.2025 and thereafter, the appeal was filed on 20.11.2025. 7. In the application, as noticed above, it has not been mentioned that after the judgment was passed on 10.05.2024, when the matter was placed before the the Executive Director (Personnel) and Law Cell of the Board for scrutiny and mere plea has been taken that there has been vast movements of files and the same involves multiple tiers of approval. 8. If the Board as such is totally negligent in filing appeals in as much as even for applying certified copies of judgments one year and five months later and there is 4 no explanation worth accepting, then as to why the delay should be condoned. 9. The principles laid down by the Apex Court in the following judgments would come into play. 10. In Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another (2010) 5 SCC 459, it has been held that in absence of any plausible and tangible explanation for long delay, there was no valid reason to condone the delay. 11. In Chief Postmaster General and others versus Living Media India Limited and another, (2012) 3 SCC 563, it has been held that liberal concession may have to be adopted, but the department cannot take advantage of its own impersonal machinery and they have to perform the duty with diligence and commitment and condonation of delay is an exception. 12. In Maniben Devraj Shah versus Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai (2012) 5 SCC 157, it has been held that vesting of certain rights on litigants have to be kept in mind before condoning the delay. 5 13. The life span of each legal remedy has been expounded in B. Madhuri Goud versus B. Damodar Reddy, (2012) 12 SCC 693. 14. In Esha Bhattacharjee versus Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others (2013) 12 SCC 649, the principles of limitation were culled out as under: “i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact situation. iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. vi) It is to be kept in 6 mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice. vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation. xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or 7 interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation. xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude.” 15. Resultantly, we are of the considered opinion that we have no other option but to dismiss the application for condonation of delay in the absence of any sufficient cause. 16. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed alongwith pending application(s), if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice. February 25, 2026 (Bipin C. Negi) (hemlata) Judge.