Recently, the Allahabad High Court dealt with a striking instance of prolonged governmental delay, where the State of Uttar Pradesh sought to reopen a matter decided more than a decade ago. The case raised significant questions on limitation, administrative lethargy, and the extent to which courts can show indulgence to the State in matters of delay.
The case arose from a writ petition decided by the High Court in November 2009, granting relief to the petitioner concerning mutation of land records and extending the benefit of Section 3 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. The State did not file a review at that stage and instead approached the Supreme Court in 2014 by way of a Special Leave Petition, which itself was filed with a substantial delay. The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP in May 2024, both on the ground of delay and on merits. Thereafter, the State moved a review application before the High Court, accompanied by an application seeking condonation of an extraordinary delay of 5,743 days from the original judgment.
The State contended that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional and occurred due to administrative procedures, movement of files, and time taken in obtaining legal opinions. It was argued that once the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP and compliance proceedings were initiated by the private party, steps were taken promptly to seek review after obtaining necessary approvals.
Opposing the plea, the private party submitted that the State had been grossly negligent and casual for years, and that mere references to internal file movement and bureaucratic processes could not constitute “sufficient cause” under the law of limitation.
The Division Bench observed that the explanation offered by the State reflected “callousness, non-seriousness and bureaucratic red-tapism.” The Court noted that the State had failed to explain why no review was filed between 2009 and 2014, and why further inaction continued even after dismissal of the SLP by the Supreme Court.
Relying extensively on Supreme Court precedents, the High Court reiterated that the law of limitation binds everyone equally, including the Government, and that condonation of delay is an exception, not an anticipated benefit for State authorities. The Court emphasised that modern technology and institutional resources available with the Government leave no room for routine excuses of administrative delay.
Holding that no “sufficient cause” was made out for condoning such an inordinate delay, the High Court rejected the delay condonation application. Consequently, the review petition was also dismissed, bringing the long-standing litigation to a close.
Case Title: State Of Up and Another V. Mohan Lal
Case No.: Civil Misc Review Application Defective No. - 99 of 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Neeraj Tiwari and Hon’ble Mr Justice Vivek Kumar Singh
Counsel for the Applicant: SC Mohan Srivastava
Counsel for the Respondent: Adv. Santosh Kumar Pandey
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
