Chandigarh, September 25 - The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the Principal Secretary of the Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Punjab, citing an unexplained delay of 992 days. Justice Sudeepthi Sharma, while pronouncing the order, firmly rejected the State’s plea for leniency, emphasizing that "delay is not to be condoned as a matter of generosity or benevolence."
Background
The case stemmed from the department’s attempt to challenge an earlier judgment unfavorable to it. However, the appeal reached the High Court nearly three years late. Seeking condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the State argued that procedural delays and administrative hurdles caused the lapse.
Read also:- Jammu & Kashmir High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Jaffer Hussain Butt Under Public Safety Act
Justice Sharma noted that the explanation given by the government was vague and failed to establish a "sufficient cause" as required under the law. She recalled that the Supreme Court has repeatedly disapproved of government departments taking shelter under bureaucratic inefficiency to justify inordinate delays.
Court's Observations
During the hearing, Additional Advocate General Mr. Animesh Sharma appeared for the Punjab government. The Court, however, remained unconvinced. Quoting from the landmark judgment Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai (2012), Justice Sharma reminded that limitation laws are not technicalities meant to destroy rights, but instruments to ensure timely justice.
"The Limitation Act is founded on public policy. It aims to prevent litigants from sleeping over their rights," the judge observed, reading from her order.
Read also:- Karnataka High Court Dismisses 82-Year-Old’s Plea Over Disputed SC/ST Land Transfer Under PTCL Act
She further cited the Supreme Court's decision in Lanka Venkateswarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2011), reiterating that
"expressions such as ‘liberal approach’ and ‘substantial justice’ cannot be stretched to obliterate the mandate of limitation prescribed by statute."
The court also invoked more recent apex court pronouncements—such as Thirunagalingam v. Lingeswaran (2025) and Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (2024)—to reinforce that bureaucratic red-tapism can no longer be accepted as a valid excuse.
Justice Sharma underscored that-
"the law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few." She echoed the Supreme Court's call for accountability, stressing that condoning delay "would institutionalize inefficiency and foster a culture where accountability is eroded."
Decision
After examining the application, the High Court concluded that the State had failed to show any genuine reason for the delay. The court remarked that
"vague assertions or generalized difficulties fall far short of meeting the statutory threshold for condonation."
Citing public interest, Justice Sharma added that it is "better served by timely governmental action than by excusing lapses on account of bureaucratic apathy."
In firm words, the judge stated,
While courts lean in favour of substantial justice, they cannot do so by defeating the law of limitation or by causing serious prejudice to the opposite party."
Consequently, the application seeking condonation of delay was dismissed, and with it, the main appeal - RSA-3244-2025—stood rejected.
The order serves as another reminder that the judiciary's patience with government departments citing administrative lethargy is wearing thin. As the judgment reflects, public offices are expected to act with the same diligence as private litigants if not greater.
Case Title: The Principal Secretary, Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Punjab & Others vs. Varinder Kumar Jain
Case No.: RSA-3244-2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 25 September 2025
