Supreme Court: In Special Leave Petition (SLP), challenging the rejection of application for condonation of 11 years of delay, filed with further delay of 123 days in filing and 96 days in re-filing after curing defects, a Division Bench of Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ., held that “condonation of delay cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is entirely the discretion of the Court whether or not to condone delay.” The Court emphasised that despite the latitude shown to the State, no case for exercise of discretion had been made out. Consequently, it rejected the applications for condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the SLP and dismissed the SLP as time-barred.
In the instant matter, the respondent, Managing Committee, approached the State Education Tribunal, Bhubaneswar under Section 24-B of the Odisha Education Act, 1969 seeking release of grant-in-aid. The Tribunal, vide order dated 30-12-2013, allowed the application and directed the State to release grant-in-aid to the teaching and non-teaching staff.
The State preferred first appeal from order before the Orissa High Court on 16-10-2015, but the appeal was time-barred and was not accompanied by the certified copy of the impugned order. For eight years, the defect was not cured. The High Court dismissed the appeal on 26-04-2023 for failure to file the certified copy.
Thereafter, the State obtained the certified copy only on 13-02-2024 and filed an application for recall, and an application for condonation of 291 days’ delay. The High Court held that the appeal was inherently defective and that the delay exceeded 11 years and consequently rejected the condonation application vide order dated 21-02-2025.
The State then filed the present SLP with 123 days’ delay in filing and 96 days’ delay in re-filing. The explanation offered for the delay was that the matter had to be processed through official channels and approval from the higher authorities was required, and that the delay was procedural and not deliberate and intentional. The State further relied on the long line of precedents advocating a liberal approach in condonation of delay when the applicant is the Government.
The Court noted that “no cause, much less sufficient cause, has been shown for exercise of discretion in favour of the State of Odisha” and the explanation for delay is such that “with much ado, the proceedings could be closed.” The Court stated that “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is elastic and intended to advance substantial justice.
The Court undertook an extensive survey of the case law on condonation of delay and noted the shift from the earlier justice-oriented liberal approach to a stricter standard. The Court traced the evolution from the liberal approach adopted in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107 and G. Ramegowda v. Land Acquisition Officer, (1988) 2 SCC 142, where it was emphasised that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred and that governmental functioning, encumbered by procedural red tape, may justify a certain latitude. It was noted that governmental decision-making is proverbially slow and “a little play at the joints” should be allowed.
However, The Court noted that later decisions including Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd., (2012) 3 SCC 563; University of Delhi v. Union of India, (2020) 13 SCC 745 and Pathapati Subba Reddy v. Collector (LA), (2024) 12 SCC 336, adopted a stricter approach and emphasised that limitation is founded on public policy and that merits are irrelevant at the stage of condonation.
The Court further referred to Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Amateur Riders Club, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 603, where it was lamented that “there is a point beyond which even the courts cannot help a litigant … under the shackles of bureaucratic indifference.”
Applying these principles, the Court found the State had been “utterly lethargic, tardy and indolent” both before the High Court and before the Supreme Court. It was noted that the explanation offered was stereotyped, reflecting only procedural movement of files and also the cause shown was not an explanation but a lame excuse.
The Court held that condonation of delay cannot be claimed as a matter of right and is entirely discretionary. The Court emphasised that despite the latitude shown to the State, no case for exercise of discretion had been made out.
“Condonation of delay cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is entirely the discretion of the Court whether or not to condone delay.”
The Court rejected the applications for condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the SLP.
Consequently, it dismissed the SLP as time-barred.
[State of Odisha v. Managing Committee of Namatara Girls High School, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 191, Decided on 09-02-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Ms. Sanjana Saddy, AOR, Ms. Shailja Singh, Adv., Counsel for the Petitioners
Mr. Nagendra Kasana, AOR, Mr. Mahendra Kumar Sahoo, Adv., Mr. A Deb Kumar, Adv., Mrs. A Deepa, Adv., Mrs. Neeta Kasana, Adv., Mrs. Anjana Kasana, Adv., Mr. Binod Ch Sabat, Adv., Counsel for the Respondent