The Chhattisgarh High Court held that, in the absence of a statutory provision permitting condonation of delay, delay in filing an appeal under the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, cannot be condoned either by the appellate authority or by the writ court. The judgment affirms the principle that statutory limitation periods must be strictly followed unless expressly relaxed by the statute. This ruling has binding authority within the jurisdiction for all appeals prescribed under the said enactment.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPCR/548/2025 of JITTU YADAV Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010443112025 |
| Date of Registration | 14-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU (concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru |
| Precedent Value | Binding within the jurisdiction of Chhattisgarh High Court |
| Type of Law | Procedural/Administrative Law – Limitation, Statutory Appeals |
| Questions of Law | Whether delay in filing an appeal under Section 9 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, can be condoned absent statutory provision? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court reaffirmed that when a statute prescribes a limitation period for filing an appeal and does not provide for condonation of delay, neither the appellate authority nor the writ court can extend the limitation. An aggrieved party must act strictly in accordance with the timelines prescribed by the relevant statute or rules. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner challenged the externment order passed by the District Magistrate and affirmed by the appellate authority. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal for delayed filing beyond the 30-day limit prescribed in the statute. The petitioner argued the absence of a provision for condonation of delay rendered him remediless. The Court found no sufficient cause for the delay and reiterated the necessity of strict compliance with statutory limitation periods. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh and administrative authorities under the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts addressing similar statutory frameworks lacking provisions for condonation of delay |
| Follows | Principle that statutory timelines are mandatory unless statute provides for condonation |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Court explicitly reaffirms that delay in statutory appeals cannot be condoned where the governing statute does not permit such condonation.
- Filing of appeals beyond statutory periods will be dismissed if the statute is silent on condonation, regardless of explanation or merit.
- Writ jurisdiction cannot be used to achieve indirectly what is prohibited directly by statute regarding limitation periods.
- Lawyers must advise clients to strictly adhere to statutory timelines for appeals under the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The externment order was made after show cause proceedings under the Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990.
- The statute prescribes a 30-day limitation for filing appeal against such orders; it does not mention condonation of delay.
- The petitioner filed the appeal 50 days after the order and did not provide any satisfactory reason for the delay.
- The appellate authority dismissed the appeal solely on grounds of delay and lack of power to condone.
- The High Court observed that an aggrieved party cannot take indefinite time to approach appellate forums, and actions must be taken strictly as per statutory provisions.
- The Court affirmed the well-settled legal proposition: what cannot be done directly under the statute cannot be done indirectly through a writ petition.
- Petition was thus dismissed for lack of merit.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The show cause notice and externment order were mechanical and did not specify the offences.
- Offences mentioned were minor or dispositional, with no new charges in 2025.
- The appeal was dismissed solely on ground of delay; no remedy for condoning delay exists in the Act.
- Orders violated Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
Respondent (State)
- No error in orders passed by either the Collector or appellate authority.
- The appeal was filed belatedly.
- No illegality exists; petition deserves dismissal.
Factual Background
The petitioner was externed from District Balodabazar-Bhatapara for one year by order dated 18.06.2025, on account of being a habitual offender under the Excise Act. A show cause notice was issued before externment. The appeal against externment was filed with a delay of nearly 50 days, beyond the 30-day period prescribed by Section 9 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, and was dismissed for being time-barred. The petitioner approached the High Court challenging the orders, citing violation of constitutional rights and absence of remedy for delay.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court examined Section 9 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, which prescribes a 30-day period for appeal against externment orders.
- The statute does not provide for condonation of delay for filing such appeals.
- It was held that if the statute does not permit condoning the delay, the same cannot be condoned either by the appellate authority or by court via writ jurisdiction.
- Reference made to the principle that statutory timelines are to be adhered to strictly in absence of express provision to the contrary.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
- Justice Bibhu Datta Guru concurred with the Chief Justice in dismissing the petition and upholding the strict application of limitation periods under the statute.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court reiterates and affirms the established principle that statutory limitation periods are mandatory unless expressly relaxed by statute.