State Of Rajasthan vs Gayatri Kunwar (2025:Rj-Jd:28036-Db)
2025 Latest Caselaw 10743 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

State Of Rajasthan vs Gayatri Kunwar (2025:Rj-Jd:28036-Db) on 30 June, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:28036-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                   D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 568/2025

1.       State   of     Rajasthan,         through        the       Secretary,     Rural
         Development             and      Panchayati            Raj         Department,
         Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2.       The Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj
         Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3.       Zila Parishad Sirohi, through the Chief Executive Officer,
         Zila Parishad Sirohi.
4.       District Establishment Committee, Sirohi, through its
         Chairman.
                                                                           ----Appellants
                                       Versus
Gayatri Kunwar daughter of Bhaira Ram Meghwal, Village Bhev,
Tehsil Sheoganj, District Sirohi, Rajasthan.
                                                                          ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. I.R. Choudhary, AAG with
                                   Mr. D.S. Pidiyas AAAG for
                                   Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, AAG
                                   Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG
For Respondent(s)            :     ----



      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH

Order

30/06/2025 (Per Hon'ble Mr. Sandeep Shah, J)

The appellant - State Government has filed the present

appeal being aggrieved against the order dated 4 th August 2021

passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.4044 of 2021 "Gayatri Kunwar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors."

wherein the only direction given was for deciding the

representation, if so filed by the petitioner within two weeks from

[2025:RJ-JD:28036-DB] (2 of 7) [SAW-568/2025]

the date of passing the order, in accordance with the enunciation

made in the case of "Namonarayan Sharma & Ors. v. State of

Rajasthan and Ors." in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.908 of 2017.

2. There is an objection with regard to the appeal being time

barred by 977 days. The appeal is accompanied by an application

filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. For the sake of

convenience, the relevant paragraphs of the application are

extracted as under:-

"2. It is most humbly submitted that the present appeal has been filed after expiry of the period of limitation as prescribed under the law due to administrative lapses. The delay is minor due to taking some administrative decision for filing of the present appeal. Not only this, due to change of government as well as counsels some delay has been happened inadvertently.

3. That, after obtaining certified copy of the impugned order dated 04.08.2021 and thereafter legal opinion was sought. After providing legal opinion against the findings and relief given by learned Single Judge, further process was carried out and a decision to file an appeal was taken.

4. Thereafter, guidance was sought from the Department to file Appeal in pursuance of the meeting. Nonetheless, adoption of a strict standard of proof in cases where Government is involved, which is dependent on the actions of its official, who often do not have any personal interest, may lead to miscarriage of justice. Subsequently, sanction was granted to file the same to the office of Additional Advocate General. Thereafter, the same has been drafted and filed without further delay."

3. In the present case, the order impugned was passed on 4 th

August 2021 and the appeal in question has been filed on 31 st

January 2025. A bare perusal of the contents of the application

filed under section 5 will reveal that neither any date has been

specified nor there is any sufficient explanation for the delay in

filing the appeal and simply it has been stated that the delay

occurred due to the administrative lapses and, strangely, it has

[2025:RJ-JD:28036-DB] (3 of 7) [SAW-568/2025]

been stated that the delay is minor. It has further been stated

that after getting the certified copy of the judgment, the legal

opinion was sought and that the decision to file an appeal was

taken without specifying any dates whatsoever as to when opinion

was sought and given and other details. Therefore, no explanation

whatsoever has been given as to why there has been a gross

delay of 977 days in filing the appeal.

4. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that

this application does not lack bona fides on the part of the

Government and the delay was due to administrative lapses. It

has been argued that the appeal being filed by the Government

certain latitude should be granted while considering the

application for condonation of delay. It has further been asserted

that the matter involves a substantial question of law as the

judgment relied upon by the learned Single Judge is not covering

the controversy in hand and thus the matter needs to be

adjudicated on merits.

5. As far as condonation of delay is concerned, the relevant

provision, that is section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides as

under:-

"Extension of prescribed period in certain cases.-- Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. Explanation.--The fact that the appellant or the applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section."

[2025:RJ-JD:28036-DB] (4 of 7) [SAW-568/2025]

6. A bare perusal of the above-mentioned provision will reveal

that the appellant/applicant is required to satisfy the Court that

there was sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making

the application within the period of limitation. The explanation

further provides that the appellant if is able to show that he was

mislead by an order, practice or judgment of High Court in

ascertaining or computing the prescribed period, that may be

treated as a sufficient cause within the meaning of the section.

7. In the present case, it is not case of the applicant that the

case falls within explanation clause and rather the application filed

under section 5 will reveal that no details whatsoever have been

given and no cause whatsoever much less any sufficient cause has

been explained for filing of the appeal at such a related stage and,

rather, it has been stated that the delay is minor.

8. The ground taken by the learned counsel for the appellant

with regard to certain latitude being granted to the Government is

only to be rejected as the issue in this regard is no longer res

integra in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court

in "Postmaster General & Ors. v. Living Media India Limited &

Anr." (2012) 3 SCC 563 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while

dealing with issue of filing of appeal by the Government agencies

has specifically stated as under:-

"26. In spite of affording another opportunity to file better affidavit by placing adequate material, neither the Department nor the person-in-charge has filed any explanation for not applying the certified copy within the prescribed period. The other dates mentioned in the affidavit which we have already extracted, clearly show that there was delay at every stage and except mentioning the dates of receipt of the file and the decision taken, there is no

[2025:RJ-JD:28036-DB] (5 of 7) [SAW-568/2025]

explanation as to why such delay had occasioned. Though it was stated by the Department that they delay was due to unavoidable circumstances and genuine difficulties, the fact remains that from day one the Department or the person/persons concerned have not evinced diligence in prosecuting the matter to this Court by taking appropriate steps.

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 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."

9. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case "Commissioner

of Public Instruction & Ors. v. Shamshuddin" 2021 SCC Online SC

3518 stated as under:-

[2025:RJ-JD:28036-DB] (6 of 7) [SAW-568/2025]

"2. The aforesaid itself shows the casual manner in which the petitioner has approached this Court without any cogent or plausible ground for condonation of delay. In fact, other than the lethargy and incompetence of the petitioner, there is nothing which has been put on record. We have repeatedly discouraged State Governments and public authorities in adopting an approach that they can walk in to the Supreme Court as and when they please ignoring the period of limitation prescribed by the Statutes, as if the Limitation statute does not apply to them. In this behalf, suffice to refer to our judgments in the State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bheru Lal [SLP [C] Diary No. 9217/2020 decided on 15.10.2020] and The State of Odisha v. Sunanda Mahakuda [SLP [C] Diary No. 22605/2020 decided on 11.01.2021]. The leeway which was given to the Government/public authorities on account of innate inefficiencies was the result of certain orders of this Court which came at a time when technology had not advanced and thus, greater indulgence was shown. This position is no more prevalent and the current legal position has been elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General. Living Media India Ltd., (2012) 3 SCC 563. Despite this, there seems to be a little change in the

approach of the Government and public authorities. "

10. Even recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of "Union of

India & Anr. v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy through his legal

representatives" 2024 SCC Online SC 489 has dealt with the issue

of limitation and again held that the Government cannot claim any

latitude and has to be treated like any other litigant and further

observed as under:-

"35. In a plethora of decisions of this Court, it has been said that delay should not be excused as a matter of generosity. Rendering substantial justice is not to cause prejudice to the opposite party. The appellants have failed to prove that they were reasonably diligent in prosecuting the matter and this vital test for condoning the delay is not satisfied in this case."

11. In the present case, the appellants have not been able to

prove that they were diligent in prosecuting the matter and no

sufficient cause whatsoever has been shown for condoning the

[2025:RJ-JD:28036-DB] (7 of 7) [SAW-568/2025]

delay. Thus on the ground of the delay itself the appeal deserves

to be dismissed and thus, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 568 of

2025 is accordingly dismissed.

                                   (SANDEEP SHAH),J                           (SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR),J
                                    15-charul/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)