Briefing Standing Counsel, Obtaining Approvals From Officials Not 'Sufficient Cause' For Condoning Delay In Filing Appeal: Delhi High Court

While rejecting an appeal moved by Delhi Government's Directorate of Education, the Delhi High Court has ruled that obtaining approvals from officials of its departments and briefing the standing counsel are not “sufficient cause” for application of condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

“In any event, in our considered view the aforesaid plea taken by the appellant in the said application qua obtaining approvals from various officials of its departments, briefing the learned Standing Counsel (Civil) for GNCTD as also preparing and perusing the appeal paper book cannot be said to be justifiable and treated as “sufficient cause” for the said application under Section 5 of the Act to be allowed. Thus, the same inspire no confidence in us,” a division bench comprising of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Saurabh Banerjee said.

Section 5 allows an appeal or application to be accepted after the limitation period, if the applicant or appellant can show a sufficient cause.

The DoE challenged a single judge order passed on May 20, 2019, allowing the petition moved by Ramjas School by upholding its decision to increase the school fees for the Academic Session 2016-2017.

The appeal was filed after more than two years and three months from the passing of the impugned order.

The DoE filed the appeal in view of the orders passed by the Supreme Court in its suo moto case, since the period till February 28, 2022, was required to be excluded for computing limitation period. For this, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was filed seeking condonation of delay of the remaining 175 days only after February 28, 2022.

The reasons for the delay as mentioned in the application were- taking approval of various officials of the DoE, vetting and perusing the grounds of appeal, collection of information or documents, briefing Standing Counsel (Civil) GNCTD and preparing the appeal.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court said that the DoE had merely made general or basic averments without giving any proper details or particulars qua the approvals taken by the department or time period involved for it to seek recourse under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

“This, unfortunately, can prove to be damaging since one of the most essential requirement(s) for a party (like the appellant herein to seek benefit under Section 5 of the Act) is that the appellant is required to make out, show and also establish any “sufficient cause” on account of which the appellant was prevented from and was unable to file the present appeal within the prescribed period of limitation under the statute,” it said.

Furthermore, the Bench said that the DoE was unable to demonstrate any plausible reason to condone the prolonged delay of 175 days. However, it clarified that the Court had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the issues raised in the appeal.

It is made clear that the said issue is not being adjudicated on merits and is kept open, it said.

Title: DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION v. RAMJAS SCHOOL

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 81

Click here to read order