Officers' 'Lethargy And Cavalier Attitude' Costing State Dearly: Indore High Court

Officers' 'Lethargy And Cavalier Attitude' Costing State Dearly: Indore High Court

During the hearing, the State argued that the writ court had failed to consider an earlier division bench judgment and sought a stay on the impugned order. It also contended that the delay was merely procedural and not deliberate. The advocate general's office further submitted that allowing the writ court's order to stand would saddle.

ATUL GAUTAMUpdated: Thursday, July 30, 2026, 10:48 PM IST
Officers' 'Lethargy And Cavalier Attitude' Costing State Dearly: Indore High Court
Officers' 'Lethargy And Cavalier Attitude' Costing State Dearly: Indore High Court | Representative Image

Indore (Madhya Pradesh): Indore bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has come down heavily on the State government for filing an appeal after an inordinate delay of 425 days, refusing to grant interim relief and remarking that the "lethargy and cavalier attitude" of government officers continues to cost the State dearly.

Hearing the State's writ appeal against an order related to promotion passed by the writ court in February 2025, the division bench comprising Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Alok Awasthi observed that a stay "cannot be granted to the appellants on mere asking" when the appeal itself has been preferred after a delay of nearly 14 months.

The bench noted that it has "time and again emphasised the need to streamline the process of filing appeals on behalf of the State", but observed that "apparently it has no effect on the concerned officers of the State, whose lethargy and cavalier attitude has caused the State dearly."

During the hearing, the State argued that the writ court had failed to consider an earlier division bench judgment and sought a stay on the impugned order. It also contended that the delay was merely procedural and not deliberate. The advocate general's office further submitted that allowing the writ court's order to stand would saddle the State with an estimated financial liability of around Rs 5.28 crore (Rs 528 lakh) across Madhya Pradesh.

The respondent opposed the plea, arguing that the appeal was barred by limitation because it had been filed after a delay of 425 days and that no case for grant of stay was made out.

Rejecting the State's request for interim protection at this stage, the HC held that no case for grant of interim relief is made out unless the application for condonation of delay is first allowed. The HC directed the respondent to file a reply to the delay-condonation application within two weeks and listed the matter in the week commencing August 10.