Dismissed¶99

The State of Karnataka v. J E Nagesh

Karnataka HC8 Oct 2025WA/158/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Division Bench; writ appeal by State; condonation of delay 1303 days; I.A.No.1/2024 under Section 5 Limitation Act 1963; appeal under Section 4 Karnataka High Court Act; laches and unexplained delay; Article 226; Chairman/MD UP Power Corporation v. Ram Gopal (2021) 13 SCC 225; Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969; administrative lethargy not sufficient cause; affidavit unsubstantiated; I.A. dismissed; writ appeal consequently dismissed.

What did the court decide?

An unsuccessful party who belatedly challenges an order before the appellate court is bound to explain the delay in filing the appeal to the satisfaction of the court, with material proof showing sufficient cause. ¶53

The State of Karnataka Vs J E Nagesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶99

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 1303 days in filing the writ appeal ought to be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (I.A.No.1/2024). +1 more

¶33

Court's answer

¶53

Ratio / Principle

The appellants had not placed any document to substantiate the reason assigned in the affidavit seeking condonation of delay.

¶58

Key takeaways

Although limitation does not strictly apply to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time, and the delay must be explained appropriately with authenticated documents.ratio¶98
The court was not satisfied with the reasons explained in the affidavit to condone the inordinate delay of 1303 days; accordingly I.A.No.1/2024 was dismissed and, consequently, the writ appeal was dismissed.ratio¶99

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal No. 158 of 2024 (S-RES), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Division Bench: D K Singh and Rajesh Rai K JJ.; oral judgment per Rajesh Rai K J.), decided 08.10.2025. The State of Karnataka and three education-department officials appealed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act against the order dated 19.06.2018 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.13636/2010 (S-RES), whereby the writ petition of respondent No.1 (J E Nagesh) was disposed of. The appeal was filed with a delay of 1303 days; I.A.No.1/2024 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 sought condonation, supported by an affidavit of Mr. Sreedhar, Assistant Director of the appellants-State, recounting file movement between the department, the Higher Education Department, the Head of Legal Cell and the Finance Department between 2019 and 2022. Relying on Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. v. Ram Gopal, (2021) 13 SCC 225, and Shivamma (Dead) by LRs. v. Karnataka Housing Board, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969 (administrative lethargy can never be a sufficient ground for condonation), the Bench held that though limitation does not strictly apply to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time without the delay being explained appropriately with authenticated documents. Observing that the appellants had placed no document to substantiate the reasons in the affidavit, the court refused condonation of the inordinate delay of 1303 days, dismissed I.A.No.1/2024 and, consequently, dismissed the writ appeal without adjudicating its merits.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:39587-DB WA No. 158 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶9

WRIT APPEAL NO. 158 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT EDUCATION DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001

¶12

Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE DIRECTOR STATE EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING DEVELOPMENT 100 FEET RING ROAD, BANASHANKARI III STAGE BANGALORE

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGLAORE 560 001

¶15

THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT INSTITUTE OF EDUCATIONAL TRAINING (DIET), HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN

¶16

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MOHAMMED ZAFFAR SHAH, AGA)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:39587-DB WA No. 158 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

AND:

¶21

J E NAGESH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O ERE GOWDA SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION (B.ED), CHANNARAYAPATNA HASSAN DISTRICT

¶22

THE PRINCIPAL SRI. ADI CHUNCHANAGIRI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION (B.ED), CHANNARAYAPATNA HASSAN DISTRICT 573116

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.01.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION No. 13636/2010 (S-RES), ETC.

¶25

THIS APPEAL ALONG WITH I.A.NO.1/2024 COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:39587-DB WA No. 158 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)

¶32

This intra Court appeal is filed by the State challenging the order dated 19.06.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.13636/2010, whereby the learned Single Judge disposed of the said writ petition filed by respondent No.1 herein.

¶33

There is delay of 1303 days in filing this appeal. I.A.No.1/2024 is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the said delay. The said application is accompanied with the affidavit of one Mr. Sreedhar who was working as Assistant Director of the appellants - State. It is stated that though the order impugned was passed on 19.06.2018, the appellants were unable to approach this Court for the reasons stated at paragraph-2 of their affidavit, which reads as under:

¶34

" 2. I state that the Appellants - State have filed the above Writ Appeal against the order dated 19.06.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.13636 OF 2010 (S-RES). The learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court was pleased to dispose the above Writ Petition vide

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:39587-DB WA No. 158 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

order dated 19.06.2018. The copy of the decision made in WP.No.13636/2010 is sent to administrative section in the Office of Commissioner for Collegiate Education by the Legal Cell on 02/03.05.2019 for further necessary action. On receipt of the decision made in WP.No.13636/2010, the case worker in administrative section submits file on 29.05.2019 to procure information along with the documents from Joint Director, Mysore regarding the case. Letter is sent to Joint Director, Mysore on 11.06.2019 to examine the case in light of decision of the Hon'ble High Court and to submit report in this regard. In pursuance to direction given by Office of Commissioner for Collegiate Education, Regional Joint Director, Mysore submits report on 01.08.2019. The report submitted by Regional Joint Director; Mysore is received in the Office of Commissioner for Collegiate Education on 13.08.2019. The case worker in appointment section in Office of Commissioner for Collegiate Education submits file on 05.10.2019 along with draft of the letter to be sent to the Government regarding seeking Orders for approving the appointment of the Petitioner from 07.05.1993. In view of the decision made in WP.No.13636/2010, Orders of the Government is sought vide letter dated: 24.10.2019 to approve the appointment of the Petitioner from 07.05.1993, that is when Mysore

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:39587-DB WA No. 158 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

University had approved to his appointment. The case worker in Collegiate Section in Higher Education Department submits file on 09.01.2020 seeking Orders to obtain opinion of Head of Legal Cell. File is sent to Head of Legal Cell for opinion on 24.01.2020. Head of Legal Cell sends back the file on 03.02.2020 with a request to have discussion in light of applicability of Karnataka Private Aided Educational Institutions Employees (Regulation of Pay, Pension and other benefits) Act 2014 in the case. After having discussion with Head of Legal Cell, instructions are given by Under Secretary on 21.03.2020 to procure documents. Letter is sent by the Government to the Department on 22.05.2020 issuing instructions send copy WP.No.13957/2009 and 13636/2010, certified copy of judgement made in said Writ Petitions along with opinion of Government Advocate and Parawise remarks. As per instructions given by the Government in letter dated: 22.05.2020, the Department sends documents to the Government on 28.07.2020. The case worker in Collegiate Section in Higher Education Department submits file on 26.08.2020 seeking Orders to obtain opinion of Head of Legal Cell. File is sent to Head of Legal Cell for opinion on 28.08.2020. Head of Legal Cell returns the file back to Higher Education Department on 31.08.2020 with a request to submit certified

¶41

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:39587-DB WA No. 158 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

copy of decisions made in Writ Petitions. File is sent to Head of Legal Cell for opinion on 08.08.2020. Head of Legal Cell gives opinion on 10.09.2020 that there are no grounds to file an appeal against Order of the Hon'ble High Court passed in WP.No.13636/2010 dated: 19.06.2020 and same has to be complied and submits file for approval of Additional Law Secretary. Additional Law Secretary approves opinion given by head of Legal Cell on 15.09.2020. File is returned to Higher Education Department on 16.09.2020. The case worker in collegiate section in Higher Education Department submits file on 23.09.2020 seeking Orders to obtain opinion of Head of Legal Cell regarding filing of appeal as there are chances of similar cases arising there by creating loss to State Exchequer. Letter is sent by Higher Education Department to Commissioner for Collegiate Education on 01.10.2020 with instruction to give opinion after consulting with the College Management regarding action to be taken in light of decision of the Hon'ble High Court. In view of instructions given in Government Letter dated: 01.10.2020, Joint Director, Mysore is instructed on 03.10.2020 to give opinion after consulting with the College Management regarding action to be taken in light of decision of the Hon'ble High Court. Joint Director, Mysore gives opinion on 28.12.2020 that the College Management has no

¶44

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:39587-DB WA No. 158 of 2024

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

reservations regarding implementation of Court Order and accordingly, action may be taken as per Court Orders. Letter is sent to Joint Director, Mysore on 21.01.2021 with instructions to give opinion regarding adherence to reservation policy at the time of appointing the Petitioner and regarding extension of aid to him as per Rules. Joint Director, Mysore gives opinion on 15.03.2021 that the College Management has no reservations regarding implementation of Court Order and accordingly, action may be taken as per Court Orders. After examining the case in detail, letter is sent to Government on 17.05.2022 seeking orders to approve the appointment of the Petitioner from 07.05.1993, that is when Mysore University had approved his appointment. File is submitted in Higher Education Department on 16.08.2022 to seek opinion of Finance Department regarding approving the appointment of the Petitioner from 07.05.1993, that is when Mysore University had approved his appointment. File is sent to Finance Department on 07.11.2022 to take a decision of implementing High Court Order only after taking decision on filing Writ Appeal against Order made in WP.No.13636/2010. In light of opinion given by Finance Department, a decision is taken on 07.12.2022 to file Writ Appeal against Order made in WP.No.13636/2010 and file is sent to Head of Legal Cell for issuance of Order to file

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:39587-DB WA No. 158 of 2024

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Writ Appeal. Accordingly, Government Order is issued on 19.12.2022 to prefer Writ Appeal against Order dated: 19.06.2018 in WP.No.13636/2010. The same was forwarded to the office of Advocate General for preferring the Writ Appeal along with entire papers. After obtaining all the material and papers and after discussing with the concerned authority, the present Writ Appeal is drafted and after obtaining approval from the concerned Department, the present Writ Appeal is filed before this Hon'ble Court. For the above said reasons, there is some delay in filing the above said Writ Appeal as it involved decision making process between the Department, Higher Education Department, Head of Legal Cell and Finance Department. "

¶51

We have carefully perused the affidavit

¶52

accompanying to the application and considered the submission made by the learned High Court Government Pleader for the appellants - State.

¶53

It is trite that an unsuccessful party who belatedly challenges the order of the court before the appellate court is bound to explain the delay, if any, in filing the appeal to the satisfaction of the court by filing material proof to show that

¶54

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:39587-DB WA No. 158 of 2024

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

he/she was prevented from sufficient cause in filing the appeal within time.

¶57

In the instant case, the appellants have not placed

¶58

any document to substantiate the reason assigned in the affidavit.

¶59

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CHAIRMAN/ MANAGING DIRECTOR OF UTTAR PRADESH POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS VS. RAM GOPAL - (2021) 13 SCC 225 has held in paragraph Nos. 11 to 14 as under:

¶60

" 11. Whilst it is true that limitation does not strictly apply to proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time. Consideration of unexplained delays and inordinate laches would always be relevant in writ actions, and the writ courts naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who have slept over wrongs and allowed illegalities to fester. Fencesitters cannot be allowed to barge into courts and cry for their rights at their convenience, and vigilant citizens ought not to be treated alike with mere opportunists. On multiple occasions, it has

¶61

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:39587-DB WA No. 158 of 2024

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

been restated that there are implicit limitations of time within which writ remedies can be enforced. In S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala [S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala, (2009) 2 SCC 479 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 388] , this Court observed thus : (SCC p. 485, para 17)

¶64

“17. It is also well-settled principle of law that “delay defeats equity”. … It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgment.”

¶65

12. Similarly, in Vijay Kumar Kaul v. Union of India [Vijay Kumar Kaul v. Union of India, (2012) 7 SCC 610 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 491] this Court while considering the claim of candidates who, despite being higher in merit, exercised their right to parity much after those who were though lower in merit but were diligently agitating their rights, this Court observed that : (SCC pp. 617-18, para 27)

¶66

“27. … It becomes an obligation to take into consideration the balance of justice or injustice in entertaining the petition or declining it on the ground of delay and laches. It is a matter of great significance that at one point of time equity that

¶67

11 -

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC:39587-DB WA No. 158 of 2024

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

existed in favour of one melts into total insignificance and paves the path of extinction with the passage of time.”

¶71

13. We may hasten to add that these principles may not, however, apply to judgments which are delivered in rem. The State and its instrumentalities are expected in such category of cases to themselves, extend the benefit of a judicial pronouncement to all similarly placed employees without forcing each person to individually knock the doors of courts. This distinction between operation of delay and laches to judgments delivered in rem and in personam, is lucidly captured in State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava [State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 191] , laying down that : (SCC pp. 363-64, para 22)

¶72

“22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time

¶73

12 -

¶74

NC: 2025:KHC:39587-DB WA No. 158 of 2024

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.

¶77

22.2. However, this principle is subject to well-recognised exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fencesitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.

¶78

22.3. However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons,

¶79

13 -

¶80

NC: 2025:KHC:39587-DB WA No. 158 of 2024

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

whether they approached the court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated persons. Such a situation can occur when the subjectmatter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma v. Union of India [K.C. Sharma v. Union of India, (1997) 6 SCC 721 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 226] ). On the other hand, if the judgment of the court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence.”

¶83

(emphasis supplied)

¶84

14. The order passed by the High Court for retention of Shyam Behari Lal in service, does not possess any ingredient of a judgment in rem. The abovecited exception, therefore, does not come to

¶85

14 - NC: 2025:KHC:39587-DB WA No. 158 of 2024

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

the respondent's rescue. It is also pertinent to mention that neither has it been pleaded nor is it apparent from the material on record that the respondent was unable to approach the court of law in time on account of any social or financial disability. Had such been the case, he ought to have availed free legal aid and should have ventilated his grievances in a timely manner. Instead, he seems to be under the assumption that the termination order is illegal, that he consequently has a right to be reinstated, and that he can agitate the same at his own sweet will. Neither of these three assumptions are true, as elaborated by us earlier."

¶88

Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

¶89

SHIVAMMA (DEAD) BY LRS. VS KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD & ORS - 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 1969, while dismissing the massive delay in filing the appeal, has observed as under:

¶90

"We deem it appropriate to make it abundantly clear that administrative lethargy and laxity can never stand as a sufficient ground for condonation of delay, and we want to convey an emphatic message to all the High Courts that delays shall not be condoned on frivolous and superficial grounds, until a proper case of sufficient cause is made out, wherein the Statemachinery is able to establish that it acted

¶91

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:39587-DB WA No. 158 of 2024

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

with bona fides and remained vigilant all throughout. Procedure is a handmaid to justice, as is famously said. But courts, and more particularly the constitutional courts, ought not to obviate the procedure for a litigating State agency, who also equally suffer the bars of limitation from pursuing litigations due to its own lackadaisical attitude.

¶94

The High Courts ought not give a legitimizing effect to such callous attitude of State authorities or its instrumentalities, and should remain extra cautious, if the party seeking condonation of delay is a State-authority. They should not become surrogates for State laxity and lethargy. The constitutional courts ought to be cognizant of the apathy and pangs of a private litigant. Litigants cannot be placed in situations of perpetual litigations, wherein the fruits of their decrees or favourable orders are frustrated at later stages. We are at pains to reiterate this everlasting trend, and put all the High Courts to notice, not to reopen matters with inordinate delay, until sufficient cause exists, as by doing so the courts only add insult to the injury, more particularly in appeals under Section 100 of the CPC, wherein its jurisdiction is already limited to questions of law".

¶95

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:39587-DB WA No. 158 of 2024

¶96

HC-KAR

¶97

In view of the above dictum, we are of the view

¶98

that though the limitation does not strictly apply to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time, that too, without explaining such delay appropriately with the authenticated documents.

¶99

In that view of the matter, we are not satisfied with the reasons explained in the affidavit to condone the inordinate delay of 1303 days. Therefore, I.A.No.1/2024 deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed . Consequently, the writ appeal also stands dismissed .

¶100

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶101

Sd/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶102

RKA; List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

The State of Karnataka v. J E Nagesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. J E Nagesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Range Gowda Vs M/S Siddartha Infotech Pvt. Ltd.

The State of Karnataka Vs Sanjeevaiah H

Dr C Vinod Hayagriv Vs Sri C Ganesh Narayan