5 min readNew DelhiFeb 28, 2026 12:48 PM ISTThe Delhi High Court said the state and its agencies are required to furnish a satisfactory explanation when approaching the court for condonation of delay. (Image generated using AI)Delhi High Court news: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea by the Centre seeking to restore a petition that had been dismissed for non-prosecution for the third time in a litigation spanning over two decades.Justice Renu Bhatnagar ruled that government departments cannot be granted preferential treatment in matters of limitation. “Even the government departments are under a special obligation to pursue litigation with due diligence, like an ordinary citizen,” the court said on February 26. Justice Renu Bhatnagar ruled that government departments, like ordinary citizens, are obliged to pursue litigation with due diligence. (Image enhanced using AI)The order added that the state and its agencies cannot claim preferential treatment in matters relating to the condonation of delay and are required to furnish a plausible and satisfactory explanation when approaching the court for such relief.Repeated dismissalsThe legal battle originated from an ex parte award passed by an industrial tribunal on September 15, 2005, which directed the reinstatement of a respondent-workman with full back wages and continuity of service.The Centre challenged this award in 2005, but the proceedings were marked by consistent non-appearance.The plea was first dismissed for default in December 2010 and restored in 2011 upon payment of Rs 25,000 in costs.It was dismissed a second time in March 2013, with the court noting the department’s “callous approach,” before being restored in 2014.Also Read | ‘Honourable exoneration, not technical discharge’: Advocate Dhruv Gupta dissects collapse of CBI’s Delhi excise policy caseAfter pending for another decade, the matter was dismissed for a third time on May 27, 2024, when no one appeared for the petitioner despite the court having previously issued a notice that no further adjournments would be granted.The Centre moved the present plea to condone a delay of approximately 365 to 395 days in filing for restoration, citing a change in its panel of counsel as the primary reason for the lapse.The petitioner argued that the discontinuation of their erstwhile counsel led to a failure in tracking the case and that they only became aware of the dismissal through inquiries at the litigation section.The respondent-workman, appearing in person, vehemently opposed the application, contending that the petitioner had “awoken from its slumber” only after execution proceedings were initiated.FindingsIt is well-settled that no preferential or lenient treatment can be accorded to the state or its instrumentalities, and the rigour of the law applies equally to all.The only explanation offered by the petitioner-department’s advocate is that, owing to the discontinuation of the erstwhile counsel from the panel of the petitioner department, the matter was not pursued, and the status of the case was not communicated to the department.The explanation offered is rather vague and sketchy. The entire blame is being put upon the erstwhile counsel without stating anything about the conduct and efforts made by the petitioner-department during the period when the limitation started to begin till the time the application for restoration was filed.Also Read | 75% disabled, 100% defiant: From being put on mute to winning in Supreme Court, how Arvind Rao is redefining inclusionThe petitioner should have been more vigilant, at least after October 2014 when its petition was restored after a second dismissal in default.A bare perusal of the record reveals that the present plea had earlier been dismissed in default on two occasions.The third instance in which the petition has been dismissed for want of prosecution.The court had restored the petition on the previous two occasions; the sole ground urged in the present application is that, due to the lapse on the part of the erstwhile counsel, the petitioner-department was unable to keep track of the proceedings and came to know of the dismissal only when inquiries were made by its concerned officers.‘Callous and casual approach’The record reflects a consistent pattern of a callous and casual approach on the part of the petitioner-department throughout the proceedings of the petition.The substantive rights of the parties should not be defeated by adopting an unduly hyper-technical or rigid approach while deciding applications for restoration or for condonation of delay.There is gross negligence, deliberate inaction, or absence of bona fides, as is evident in the present case. A liberal approach cannot be extended even if the party seeking such indulgence is the state or one of its instrumentalities.In cases involving delay, the material consideration is not the length of the delay but the sufficiency and quality of the explanation offered.In the absence of any such plausible and cogent reasons, no such relief could be granted to the applicant.Jagriti Rai works with The Indian Express, where she writes from the vital intersection of law, gender, and society. Working on a dedicated legal desk, she focuses on translating complex legal frameworks into relatable narratives, exploring how the judiciary and legislative shifts empower and shape the consciousness of citizens in their daily lives. Expertise Socio-Legal Specialization: Jagriti brings a critical, human-centric perspective to modern social debates. Her work focuses on how legal developments impact gender rights, marginalized communities, and individual liberties. Diverse Editorial Background: With over 4 years of experience in digital and mainstream media, she has developed a versatile reporting style. Her previous tenures at high-traffic platforms like The Lallantop and Dainik Bhaskar provided her with deep insights into the information needs of a diverse Indian audience. Academic Foundations: Post-Graduate in Journalism from the Indian Institute of Mass Communication (IIMC), India’s premier media training institute. Master of Arts in Ancient History from Banaras Hindu University (BHU), providing her with the historical and cultural context necessary to analyze long-standing social structures and legal evolutions. ... Read More © IE Online Media Services Pvt LtdTags:delhi high court