Government Not Entitled to Special Treatment in Delay Condonation: Allahabad High Court Rejects Review Filed After 5,743 Days -

Shivaji Rathore 18 Dec 2025

While dealing with an extraordinary delay of 5,743 days in filing a Review Petition, the Allahabad High Court has reiterated that government departments stand on the same footing as private litigants and cannot seek automatic or undue benefit of delay condonation merely because of bureaucratic functioning. The Division Bench comprising Justice Neeraj Tiwari and Justice Vivek Kumar Singh categorically held that condonation of delay is an exception, not a right, and the State cannot presume it as an anticipated advantage.

Court’s Observations on Government Accountability
The Bench observed:

“The government agencies are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the Government Departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of the Government Department.”

The Court emphasised that law does not recognise two different standards one for private parties and another for the State when it comes to limitation and procedural discipline.

Background of the Case:- The State of Uttar Pradesh filed a Review Petition challenging a judgment dated 13.11.2009 passed under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. To justify the enormous delay of 5,743 days, the State contended that: A Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed before the Supreme Court, The SLP itself was dismissed on 03.05.2024, both on the ground of delay of 1,633 days and on merits, and After dismissal of the SLP, there was an additional delay of about 489 days in filing the Review Petition before the High Court.

Rejection of Bureaucratic Excuses

The High Court found that no sufficient cause had been disclosed for the delay. The explanation offered by the State revolved around: Movement of files and proposals within departments, Communication with government counsel, Collection of records from advocates appearing before the Supreme Court, and

Routine bureaucratic processes.:- The Court was unimpressed and held that such mechanical and stereotyped explanations cannot constitute “sufficient cause” under law.
Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents:- The Bench relied upon a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court, including:

Union of India v. Central Tibetan Schools Administration & Ors.,
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Bherulal,
Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through LRs, and
Majji Sannemma v. Reddy Sridevi, to reiterate that the expression “sufficient cause” cannot be interpreted liberally where negligence, inaction, lack of bona fides, or casual conduct is clearly attributable to the party seeking condonation of delay.

No Special Privilege for the State
The Court further observed:
“It hardly matters whether litigant is a private party or State or Union of India when it comes to condoning the gross delay of several years. The government bodies and their agencies should be vigilant in filing the petition within time. There is no need to accept the usual explanation that the petition was kept pending for several years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process.”
Rejecting the State’s attempt to take shelter behind the slow pace of governmental machinery, the Court held that the conduct of the State reflected a casual and negligent approach towards litigation.

Final Outcome
Holding that the delay was not sufficiently explained, even after dismissal of the SLP by the Supreme Court, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the Review Petition.

Case Details

Case Title: State of U.P. and Another v. Mohan Lal
Case No.: CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. 99 of 2025