advocatemmmohan

A. Limitation – Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963 – “Sufficient Cause” – Government Litigant

(Paras 13–17, 20–22)

The expression “sufficient cause” under Limitation Act, 1963 is elastic but not unlimited.

While some latitude is permissible to a “State” owing to bureaucratic procedures, such latitude cannot extend to condoning gross lethargy, indifference, and prolonged inaction.

B. Delay by Government – Liberal Approach – Limits of Judicial Patience

(Paras 14–19)

Earlier decisions such as:

Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji
G. Ramegowda v. Land Acquisition Officer

advocated a justice-oriented and liberal approach in condoning delay for government litigants.

However, later decisions including:

Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd.
University of Delhi v. Union of India
Pathapati Subba Reddy v. Collector (LA)

reflect a stricter approach, emphasizing that limitation law is founded on public policy and cannot be diluted endlessly.

C. “Explanation” vs. “Excuse” – Distinction

(Para 17, 21)

Courts must distinguish between:

A genuine “explanation”, and
A stereotyped bureaucratic “excuse”.

Routine pleas of administrative delay and procedural approval do not constitute sufficient cause.

D. Inherent Defect in Appeal – Failure to File Certified Copy

(Paras 3–5)

An appeal not accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order and not cured for eight years remains inherently defective.

Delay exceeding eleven years cannot be condoned on vague grounds.

E. Judicial Discretion – Not a Matter of Right

(Para 21)

Condonation of delay is discretionary, not a vested right—even for the State.

Where conduct shows gross indifference, discretion must be refused.

FACTUAL MATRIX

1. Original Proceedings

Respondent school approached the State Education Tribunal under Section 24B of the Odisha Education Act, 1969 seeking grant-in-aid.

Tribunal Order (30.12.2013):

Directed State of Odisha to release grant-in-aid.

2. Appeal Before High Court

State filed FAO No. 582 of 2015 (16.10.2015).

Defects:

Appeal time-barred.
No certified copy annexed.
Certified copy not filed for 8 years.

High Court (26.04.2023):

Dismissed appeal for failure to file certified copy.

3. Subsequent Conduct

State obtained certified copy only on 13.02.2024.

Filed:

Recall application (I.A. 165/2024)
Delay condonation application (291 days)

High Court (21.02.2025):

Observed delay exceeds 11 years.
Rejected condonation.
Dismissed recall as time-barred.

4. Before Supreme Court

Further delay:

123 days in filing SLP.
96 days in re-filing after curing defects.

Explanation offered:

Procedural delay.
Approval from higher authority.
No deliberate intention.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

I. Evolution of Law on Government Delay

Phase 1 – Liberal Approach

Katiji (1987)
Justice-oriented approach; substantial justice preferred over technicalities.

Ramegowda (1988)
Recognized bureaucratic red-tape; allowed “play at the joints.”

Phase 2 – Judicial Frustration

Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Amateur Riders Club (1994)
Court expressed exasperation at stereotyped affidavits.

Phase 3 – Strict Scrutiny Era

Living Media (2012)
427-day delay not condoned.

University of Delhi (2020)
916-day delay not condoned.

Pathapati Subba Reddy (2024)
Merits irrelevant at condonation stage; limitation founded on public policy.

II. Core Reasoning of the Court

1. No Sufficient Cause

The Court held:

The explanation given was:

Mechanical,
Routine,
Bureaucratic,
Stereotyped.

It was an excuse—not an explanation.

2. Chronic Lethargy

State was:

Indolent before High Court.
Indolent before Supreme Court.
Inactive for 8 years.
Approached SC after further 4 months’ delay.

Judicial patience exhausted.

3. Public Policy of Limitation

Limitation:

Ensures finality.
Prevents indefinite litigation.
Applies equally to State and private litigant.

Government cannot take advantage of its own inefficiency.

4. Discretionary Nature of Condonation

Condonation:

Not automatic.
Not sympathetic.
Not routine.
Must be justified.

The State failed to establish a case warranting exercise of discretion.

RATIO DECIDENDI

The liberal approach towards delay by Government under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has limits and cannot excuse gross indifference.
Bureaucratic delay and procedural approvals do not automatically constitute “sufficient cause.”
Courts must distinguish between a genuine explanation and a mechanical excuse.
Judicial discretion in condonation is not to be exercised where the State exhibits prolonged lethargy.
There exists a threshold beyond which even courts cannot rescue a Government litigant from the consequences of its indifference.

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN

Tuesday, February 17, 2026