[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramdayal on 4 February, 2026
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 MCC-1723-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
MCC No. 1723 of 2019
(THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Vs RAMDAYAL AND OTHERS )
Dated : 04-02-2026
Shri S.S. Kushwaha - Government Advocate for applicants/State.
Shri Arvind Kumar Agrawal - Advocate for respondents.
It is submitted by counsel for the State that the Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department has forwarded the letter to G.A.D. for taking action
against all the persons whose names are mentioned in I.A. No.1208/2026.
It is submitted by Shri Kushwaha that he has consulted the Secretary,
G.A.D. who has assured that a swift action shall be taken against the guilty
OICs who were sitting over the matter and enquiry shall also be done from
an angle whether the said silence on the part of the OICs was as a result of
negligence in discharge of their duties or they were hand in glove with
private persons. It is submitted that after issuing a show cause notice to the
erring Officers, departmental enquiry shall be conducted, if it is found
necessary and departmental enquiry shall be concluded as early as possible.
The Supreme in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramkumar
Choudhary decided on 29.11.2024 i n SLP (C) Diary Number 48636/2024
has held as under :
"6. At the same time, we cannot simply brush aside
the delay occurred in preferring the second appeal, due
to callous and lackadaisical attitude on the part of the
officials functioning in the State machinery. Though the
Government adopts systematic approach in handling the
legal issues and preferring the petitions/ applications/
2 MCC-1723-2019
appeals well within the time, due to the fault on the part
of the officials in merely communicating the
information on time, huge revenue loss will be caused
to the Government exchequer. The present case is one
such case, wherein, enormous delay of 1788 days
occasioned in preferring the second appeal due to the
lapses on the part of the officials functioning under the
State, though valuable Government lands were
involved. Therefore, we direct the State to streamline
the machinery touching the legal issues, offering legal
opinion, filing of cases before the Tribunal / Courts,
etc., fix the responsibility on the officer(s) concerned,
and penalize the officer(s), who is/are responsible for
delay, deviation, lapses, etc., if any, to the value of the
loss caused to the Government. Such direction will have
to be followed by all the States scrupulously.
7. There is one another aspect of the matter which we
must not ignore or overlook. Over a period of time, we
have noticed that whenever there is a plea for
condonation of delay be it at the instance of a private
litigant or State the delay is sought to be explained right
from the time, the limitation starts and if there is a delay
of say 2 years or 3 years or 4 years till the end of the
same. For example if the period of limitation is 90 days
then the party seeking condonation has to explain why
it was unable to institute the proceedings within that
period of limitation. What events occurred after the 91st
day till the last is of no consequence. The court is
required to consider what came in the way of the party
that it was unable to file it between the 1st day and the
90th day. It is true that a party is entitled to wait until
the last day of limitation for filing an appeal. But when
it allows the limitation to expire and pleads sufficient
cause for not filing the appeal earlier, the sufficient
cause must establish that because of some event or
circumstance arising before the limitation expired it was
not possible to file the appeal within time. No event or
circumstance arising after the expiry of limitation can
constitute such sufficient cause. There may be events or
circumstances subsequent to the expiry of limitation
which may further delay the filing of the appeal. But
that the limitation has been allowed to expire without
the appeal being filed must be traced to a cause arising
3 MCC-1723-2019
within the period of limitation. (See: Ajit Singh Thakur
Singh and Another v. State of Gujarat , AIR 1981 SC
733)."
Considering the submissions made by counsel for the State, according
to which for the time being the Secretary, G.A.D. would issue notice to all
the so called erring Officers, the case is adjourned.
List this case on 05.03.2026 . The State shall point out the progress in
the departmental proceedings.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
Aman
