Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Bal Krishna Jatav on 25 April, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9316
1 W.A. No. 668 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 25th OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 668 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
BAL KRISHNA JATAV
Appearance:
Shri S S Kushwaha, Government Advocate for appellants/State.
Shri Alok Bandhu Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent .
ORDER
Per: Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia Heard on I.A. No.4350/2025, an application for condonation of delay.
2. I.A. No.2235/2024, an application for condonation of delay, was taken up for consideration on 9-4-2025. Since it did not contain details of the steps taken by appellants to file the appeal, therefore counsel for appellants sought permission of this Court to withdraw the same with liberty to file a supplementary application with every minute detail, including the date on which the proposal for filing an appeal had originated including the time Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 01-05-2025 07:12:57 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9316 2 W.A. No. 668 of 2024 spent on each table and the action proposed by the State against erring officers who are responsible for delay in filing the appeal. Thereafter, I.A. No. 4350 of 2025 has been filed.
3. It is submitted by counsel for appellants that although record has been received, but the case in hand is covered by order passed by this Court today in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. Eshwar Singh Rajpoot (W.A. No.665/2024), therefore, it is prayed that I.A. No.4350/2025 which is an application for condonation of delay may also be disposed of in the light of order passed in the case of Eshwar Singh Rajpoot (Supra).
4. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants.
5. The record pertaining to filing of this case has been received which contains the following documents:-
21/08/23 Legal opinion from the office of Additional Advocate General was sought.
14/09/23 Chief Engineer, Chambal Betwa Kachhar, Water Resources Department, Bhopal, wrote a letter to the Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, seeking permission to prefer an appeal and appointment of OIC.
18/01/24 Permission was granted by the Law and Legislative Department to prefer an appeal 26/02/24 Superintendent Engineer (Administration) for Engineer-in-
Chief, Water Resources Department, Bhopal, wrote a letter to the Chief Engineer, Chambal Betwa Kachhar, to prefer an appeal.
14/03/24 The appeal was preferred.
6. Although record of this case does not contain all the documents which Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 01-05-2025 07:12:57 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9316 3 W.A. No. 668 of 2024 are part of the record received in the case of Eshwar Singh Rajpoot (Supra), but it is submitted by counsel for appellants that in the present case also permission to file appeal was granted by Law and Legislative Department on 18/1/2024, thus steps taken prior thereto are common.
7. Considered the aforesaid submission made by counsel for appellants.
8. Today, this Court in the case of Eshwar Singh Rajpoot (Supra) has passed the following order :-
"Heard on I.A. No.4349/2025, an application for condonation of delay.
2. I.A.No.2231/2024 for condonation of delay was taken up for consideration on 9-4-2025. Since it did not contain the details of the steps taken by appellants to file the appeal, therefore counsel for appellants sought permission of this Court to withdraw the same, with liberty to file a supplementary application with every minute detail, including the date on which the proposal for filing an appeal had originated including the time spent on each table and the action proposed by the State against erring officers who are responsible for delay in filing the appeal. Thereafter, I.A. No. 4349 of 2025 was filed which reads as under:
"An Application under Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963 May It Please This Hon'ble Court, Most humbly and respectfully, the appellants beg to submit present application, as under:-
1. That, the instant writ appeal is filed by the humble appellants against the order dated 17.08.2023 passed by Hon'ble Writ Court in Writ Petition no.1017/2023.
2. That, the impugned order dated 17.08.2023 uploaded on the website of this Hon'ble Court on 18.08.2023 and aforesaid order Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 01-05-2025 07:12:57 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9316 4 W.A. No. 668 of 2024 come in the knowledge of appellants on 20.08.2023 immediately appellants wrote a letter dated 21.08.2023 to the office of Advocate General, Gwalior or providing legal opinion.
3. That, the Additional Advocate General, Gwalior tendered his legal opinion on 29.08.2023 thereafter on 04.09.2023 legal opinion was forwarded to Higher Authorities to file writ appeal against the order dated 17.08.2023.
4. That, permission has been granted to file writ appeal before this Hon'ble Court on 31.01.2024 and thereafter the OIC contacted to the office of Advocate General Gwalior and accordingly writ appeal has been preferred on 14.03.2024..
5. That, the delay caused in filing appeal is bonafide in nature coupled with the fact that appellants having a strong prima facie case hence, on the basis of reason given in the application delay of 120 days in filing writ appeal is liable to be condoned under the provisions of section 5 of Limitation Act.
6. That the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of J. Kumaradasan and Another v. IRIC Sohan and others, reported in (2009) 12 SCC 175 has held that provisions contained in Section 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act are made for grant of relief where a person has committed some mistake and they should be applied in a broad-based manner and the Court will not apply such beneficent provisions in a pedantic manner.
7. That, there is certain delay in filing the present Writ appeal is 120 days, which is based on bona-fide, hence same deserves to be condoned. Thus the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held in the case of Executive Officer Antiyur Town Panchayat Vs.G. Arumugan reported in 2015 (2) MPLJ 502 (SC) and delay may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice if that delay is procedural on as under:-
"As held by this Court in State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok AO and Others (AIR 2005 SC 2191), the court must always take a justice- oriented approach while considering an application for condonation of delay. If the court is convinced that there had been an attempt on the part of the government officials or public servants to defeat justice by causing delay, the court, in view of the larger public interest, should take a lenient view in such situations, condone the delay, howsoever huge may be the delay, Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 01-05-2025 07:12:57 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9316 5 W.A. No. 668 of 2024 and have the matter decided on merits.
Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and condone the delay of 1373 days in filing the second appeal. The case is remitted to the High court for further consideration in accordance with law. The Interlocutory Application No. 2 of 2014 is accordingly disposed of."
8. That in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another vs. Mst. Katiji and others, reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"In any event, the State which represents the collective cause of the community, does not deserve a litigant-non-grate status. The Courts therefore have to be informed with the spirit and philosophy of the provision in the course of the interpretation of the expression "sufficient cause". So also the same approach has to be evidenced in its application to matters at hand with the end in view to do even handed justice on merits in preference to the approach which scuttles a decision on merits. Turning to the facts of the matter giving rise to the present appeal, we are satisfied that sufficient cause exists for the delay. The order of the High Court dismissing the appeal before it as time barred, is therefore, set aside. Delay is condoned. And the matter is remitted to the High Court. The High Court will now dispose of the appeal on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the sides."
9. That in the case of Sheo Raj Singh (deceased) through L.Rs. V/s Union of India and Anr. reported in (2023) 10 SCC 531 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the liberal approach should be taken regarding delay in the appeals, filed by the State.
10. That, the Hon'ble Apex Court also held in series of the cases that while condoning the delay, a liberal approach should be adopted, details of which are given as under:-
1. 2015 (3) SCC 569
2. 2023 (5) SCC 650
11. That, while deciding the application for condonation of delay, the facts and grounds raised in the memo of writ appeal may kindly be considered.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 01-05-2025 07:12:57 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9316 6 W.A. No. 668 of 2024
12. That, the instant application for condonation of delay is being filed bonafide intentions and thus deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice.
13. That, other submissions shall be urged during the course of arguments on this application.
PRAYER :-
It is therefore most humbly prayed that on the strengths and facts narrated above, the present application may kindly be allowed and the delay of 120 days to file present appeal may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice.
Place: Gwalior Date: .04.2025 Humble Appellant State of Madhya Pradesh Through Government Advocate
3. Accordingly, this Court on 21-4-2025 observed that I.A. No. 4349 of 2025 is equally vague and the appellants have suppressed certain facts.
Accordingly, they were directed to produce the entire record relating to the steps taken by the appellants prior to filing of this appeal.
4. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the record has been produced which discloses the following facts:
21/08/23 Legal opinion from the office of Additional Advocate General was sought.
29/08/23 Additional Advocate General gave legal opinion to file writ appeal.
14/09/23 Chief Engineer, Chambal Betwa Kachhar, Water Resources Department, Bhopal, wrote a letter to the Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, to prefer an appeal. 12/01/24 Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, wrote a Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 01-05-2025 07:12:57 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9316 7 W.A. No. 668 of 2024 letter to the Law and Legislative Department for grant of permission to file appeal.
18/01/24 Permission was granted by the Law and Legislative Department to prefer an appeal 07/02/24 Superintendent Engineer (Administration) for Engineer-in-
Chief, Water Resources Department, Bhopal, wrote a letter to the Chief Engineer, Chambal Betwa Kachhar, to prefer an appeal.
14/03/24 Ultimately, the appeal was preferred.
5. From a plain reading of the aforesaid chart, it is clear that on 14/9/2023, the Chief Engineer, Chambal Betwa Kachhar, Water Resources Department, wrote a letter to the Engineer-in-Chief to prefer an appeal. Thereafter, the record is completely silent as to when the Engineer-in-Chief forwarded the file to the Law and Legislative Department to prefer an appeal. However, from the order dated 18/1/2024 passed by the Law and Legislative Department, it is clear that the copy was sent to the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Bhopal in response to his letter dated 12/1/2024. Thus, it is clear that the Secretary, Water Resources Department, must have forwarded the proposal to the Law and Legislative Department only on 12/1/2024. Since the Chief Engineer had forwarded the file to the Engineer-in-Chief on 14-9-2023, therefore in the light of order dated 9-4- 2025 passed by this Court, it was obligatory on the part of the State Authorities to give every minute detail including the date on which proposal for filing appeal had originated, the time spent on each table, and the action proposed by the State against the erring officers who were responsible for delay in filing the appeal.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 01-05-2025 07:12:57 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9316 8 W.A. No. 668 of 2024
6. From the subsequent application (I.A. No. 4349 of 2025) as well as from the record, it is clear that respondents have specifically withheld the letter written by the Engineer-in-Chief to the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, for forwarding the case to the Law and Legislative Department. Thus, the act of withholding the document from the Court clearly indicates that an adverse inference must be drawn against the Engineer-in-Chief. Once the Engineer-in-Chief was informed by the Chief Engineer by letter dated 14-9-2023 along with the opinion given by the office of Additional Advocate General, it was obligatory on the part of the Officer- in-charge to give every minute detail as to on whose table the proposal remained pending and what action was taken against such erring officer/employee. Thus, it is clear that the State authorities are hiding facts from the Court and in the supplementary application, instead of disclosing the details, have relied upon judgments passed by the Supreme Court concerning condonation of delay.
7. Law regarding condonation of delay has to be applied only after the factual foundation is laid down by Authorities. The State Authorities cannot seek a special privilege vis-à-vis an ordinary litigant to claim that they can sleep over the matter for months as per their convenience and the Courts are under an obligation to condone the delay. It is true that the State has to function through its functionaries and sometimes, time is consumed in completing the formalities, but the State must come with factual foundation showing on which table how much time was consumed and if there is some unreasonable delay, then they must give an explanation for pendency of file on a particular table and action taken against the person before whom the proposal remained pending. In the present case, in spite of repeated opportunities given by this Court to file supplementary application pointing Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 01-05-2025 07:12:57 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9316 9 W.A. No. 668 of 2024 out that the reason assigned by the appellants/State Authorities is not satisfactory, the State Authorities have decided not to expose their own weakness which clearly shows that officers are not going to improve their behavior and, on the contrary, the view of the State appears to be that once the State has filed an appeal, then the delay has to be condoned whatever the lethargic attitude of its employees may be. It is true that sometimes the proposals are withheld by a particular person with an intention to give undue advantage to the respondent, but until and unless the State Government takes strict disciplinary action against such person, this Court cannot hold that withholding of file by a particular person was with the mala fide intention to give undue advantage to the respondent.
8. For condonation of delay, the explanation has to be a bona fide one and where the State Authorities are not ready to act swiftly, then the Court is not supposed to adopt a liberal view, specifically when the loss sustained by the State is a monetary loss only. It is made clear that length of delay is not crucial but whether there is plausible or sufficient explanation for delay is the crucial factor. In this case, this Court had granted liberty to the respondents to file a supplementary application pointing out the time consumed by each and every person who was required to deal with the proposal. In spite of the opportunity given by this Court, respondents have tried to ignore the directions of the Court and instead of laying down the factual foundation, have decided to burden the application with judgments passed by the Supreme Court.
9. Thus, this Court is of considered opinion that the respondents have deliberately suppressed the material facts and did not disclose the same to this Court in spite of the opportunity given.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 01-05-2025 07:12:57 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9316 10 W.A. No. 668 of 2024
10. The Supreme Court in the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By Lrs & Ors . v. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) decided on 8-4-2024 in S.L.P. (C) No. 31248/2018 has held that while considering the question of limitation, the merits of the case are not to be considered. It has been held that howsoever liberal approach is adopted in condoning the delay, existence of 'sufficient cause' for not filing the appeal in time is a condition precedent. The phrases 'liberal approach', 'justice- oriented approach' and cause for the advancement of 'substantial justice' cannot be employed to defeat the law of limitation so as to allow stale matters or as a matter of fact dead matters to be revived and re-opened by taking aid of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In the said case, the Supreme Court has held as under:-
"16. Generally, the courts have adopted a very liberal approach in construing the phrase 'sufficient cause' used in Section 5 of the Limitation Act in order to condone the delay to enable the courts to do substantial justice and to apply law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice. In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Ors. vs. Katiji and Ors., this Court in advocating the liberal approach in condoning the delay for 'sufficient cause' held that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late; it is not necessary to explain every day's delay in filing the appeal; and since sometimes refusal to condone delay may result in throwing out a meritorious matter, it is necessary in the interest of justice that cause of substantial justice should be allowed to prevail upon technical considerations and if the delay is not deliberate, it ought to be condoned. Notwithstanding the above, howsoever, liberal approach is adopted in condoning the delay, existence of 'sufficient cause' for not filing the appeal in time, is a condition precedent for exercising the discretionary power to condone the delay. The phrases 'liberal approach', 'justice oriented approach' and cause for the advancement of 'substantial justice' cannot be employed to defeat the law of limitation so as to allow stale matters or as a matter of fact dead matters to be revived and re-opened by taking aid of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 01-05-2025 07:12:57 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9316 11 W.A. No. 668 of 2024
17. It must always be borne in mind that while construing 'sufficient cause' in deciding application under Section 5 of the Act, that on the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal, substantive right in favour of a decree-holder accrues and this right ought not to be lightly disturbed. The decree-holder treats the decree to be binding with the lapse of time and may proceed on such assumption creating new rights.
18. This Court as far back in 1962 in the case of Ramlal, Motilal And Chhotelal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd has emphasized that even after sufficient cause has been shown by a party for not filing an appeal within time, the said party is not entitled to the condonation of delay as excusing the delay is the discretionary jurisdiction vested with the court. The court, despite establishment of a 'sufficient cause' for various reasons, may refuse to condone the delay depending upon the bona fides of the party.
19. In Maqbul Ahmad and Ors. vs. Onkar Pratap Narain Singh and Ors., it had been held that the court cannot grant an exemption from limitation on equitable consideration or on the ground of hardship. The court has time and again repeated that when mandatory provision is not complied with and delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, it ought not to condone the delay on sympathetic grounds alone.
20. In this connection, a reference may be made to Brijesh Kumar and Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Ors. wherein while observing, as above, this Court further laid down that if some person has obtained a relief approaching the court just or immediately when the cause of action had arisen, other persons cannot take the benefit of the same by approaching the court at a belated stage simply on the ground of parity, equity, sympathy and compassion.
21. In Lanka Venkateswarlu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., where the High Court, despite unsatisfactory explanation for the delay of 3703 days, had allowed the applications for condonation of delay, this Court held that the High Court failed to exercise its discretion in a reasonable and objective manner. High Court should have exercised the discretion in a systematic and an informed manner. The liberal approach in considering sufficiency of cause for delay should not be allowed to override substantial law of limitation. The Court observed that the concepts such as 'liberal Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 01-05-2025 07:12:57 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9316 12 W.A. No. 668 of 2024 approach', 'justice-oriented approach' and 'substantial justice' cannot be employed to jettison the substantial law of limitation.
22. It has also been settled vide State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Ashok Kumar Chokhani & Ors. , that the merits of the case cannot be considered while dealing with the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
23. In Basawaraj and Anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, this Court held that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The expression 'sufficient cause' as occurring in Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fide is writ large. It was also observed that even though limitation may harshly affect rights of the parties but it has to be applied with all its rigour as prescribed under the statute as the courts have no choice but to apply the law as it stands and they have no power to condone the delay on equitable grounds.
24. It would be beneficial to quote paragraph 12 of the aforesaid decision which clinches the issue of the manner in which equilibrium has to be maintained between adopting liberal approach and in implementing the statute as it stands. Paragraph 12 reads as under:
"12. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. "A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation." The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim dura lex sed lex which means "the law is hard but it is the law", stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that, "inconvenience is not" a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute."Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 01-05-2025 07:12:57 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9316 13 W.A. No. 668 of 2024
25. This Court in the same breath in the same very decision vide paragraph 15 went on to observe as under:
"15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the "sufficient cause"
which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature."
(emphasis supplied)
26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that:
(i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself;
(ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time;
(iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally;Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 01-05-2025 07:12:57 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9316 14 W.A. No. 668 of 2024
(iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act;
(v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence;
(vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal;
(vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and
(viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision."
11. The Supreme Court in the case of H. Guruswamy & Ors. Vs. A. Krishnaiah Since Deceased By Lrs decided on 8-1-2025 in Civil Appeal No. 317/2025 has held as under:-
"15. The rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly.
16. The length of the delay is definitely a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the respondents herein, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for the purpose of instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 01-05-2025 07:12:57 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9316 15 W.A. No. 668 of 2024 merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay.
17. We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. No court should keep the 'Sword of Damocles' hanging over the head of a litigant for an indefinite period of time."
12. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that appellants have not placed correct facts on record and tried to save the erring officer(s), who was/were sitting over the proposal, this Court is of considered opinion that no case is made out for condonation of delay irrespective of merits of the case, because Sword cannot be kept hanging on the head of the opposite party for indefinite period.
Now the only question for consideration is as to whether public exchequer should be made to suffer on account of mala fide action on the part of State authorities or not ?
13. In the present case, this Court has already concluded that in spite of opportunity given by this Court to the State authorities to give each and every minute detail with regard to the action taken against erring officers, nothing was placed on record and no action has been taken against the erring officers. As already pointed out, the Chief Engineer sent the proposal Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 01-05-2025 07:12:57 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9316 16 W.A. No. 668 of 2024 to Engineer-in-Chief on 14/09/2023 for filing appeal. Thereafter, the matter remained pending for four long months and it appears that Secretary, Water Resource Department forwarded the case to Law and Legislative Department by letter dated 12/1/2024 and permission was granted by Law and Legislative Department on 18/1/2024, which was communicated by Superintendent Engineer (Administration) for Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, Bhopal by letter dated 7/2/2024, but still the appeal was filed on 14/3/2024 i.e. after more than one month from the date of receipt of permission for filing appeal. No explanation has been given by the OIC for not filing the appeal immediately after receipt of permission for filing appeal. Thus, in the light of judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of A. Selvaraj v. C.B.M. College reported in (2022) 4 SCC 627, it is directed that whatever financial burden would come on the public exchequer shall be recovered by the State Government from the Officer In Charge as well as the Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, Bhopal.
14. Let the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, file his report before the Principal Registrar of this Court with regard to recovery of financial burden which may be faced by the public exchequer, within a period of 3 months from today.
15. With aforesaid observations, I.A. No. 4349/2025 is hereby rejected.
16. Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed as barred by time."
9. In view of aforesaid, I.A. No.4350/2025 is rejected in the light of order passed by this Court in the case of Eshwar Singh Rajpoot (Supra), with the only modification that the financial repercussions shall be recoverable from erring officer(s).
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 01-05-2025 07:12:57 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9316 17 W.A. No. 668 of 2024 Let the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, file his report before the Principal Registrar of this Court with regard to recovery of financial burden which may be faced by the public exchequer, from the erring officer(s), within a period of 3 months from today.
10. As a consequence thereof, the appeal is dismissed as barred by time.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) (RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE JUDGE
(and)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 01-05-2025
07:12:57 PM