Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief … vs Bipin Kumar Bihari on 5 June, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:14481-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
I.A. No. 13259 of 2025
In / And
L.P.A. No. 563 of 2024
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary having its
registered office at Project Building, P.O: Dhurwa, P.S: Jagannathpur,
District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Development, Ranchi,
having its registered office at Nepal House, P.O & P.S- Doranda, Dist-
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. The Principal Secretary, Personal Administrative Reforms &
Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its
registered office at Project Building, P.O: Dhurwa, P.S: Jagannathpur,
District - Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. The Development Commissioner, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi -
Cum- Chairman of D.P.C, having its registered office at P.O & P.S
Doranda, Dist-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
5. The Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department, Ranchi, having its
registered office at Nepal House, P.O & P.S Doranda, Dist- Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
6. The Deputy Secretary, Water Resource Development Department,
Ranchi, having its registered office at Nepal House. P.O & P.S
Doranda, Dist- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... Respondents/Appellants
Versus
Bipin Kumar Bihari, aged about 59 years, S/o. Late Bindeshwari Thakur,
at present R/O Janardan Colony, Jasidih, P.O & P.S Jasidih, Dist.
Deoghar, permanent resident of At & P.O: Rasonk, Dist: Khagaria, State:
Bihar.
... Writ Petitioner/Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---------
For the Appellants: Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General
Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Sr. S.C.-I
For the Respondent: Mr. Deepak Kumar Dubey, Advocate
Ms. Rashmi Sharma, Advocate
---------
Reserved on: 05.05.2025 Pronounced on: 5/06/2025
Per M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.
1. This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
by the applicants to condone the delay of 242 days in filing the Letters
Page 1 of 6
2025:JHHC:14481-DB
Patent Appeal challenging the judgment dt. 08.12.2023 of the learned
Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 3351 of 2023.
2. In the application seeking condonation of delay, it is stated that the
judgment of the learned Single Judge was communicated by the
respondent/writ petitioner to the applicants’ Department through a
representation on 15.01.2024; thereafter the file was put up before the
Under Secretary on 31.01.2024 with a noting that the file may be endorsed
to the Law Department for its opinion for the purpose of preparing a
Letters Patent Appeal against the impugned judgment; it was then
forwarded to the Deputy Secretary on the same day for the said purpose;
thereafter it was put up before the Special Work Officer by the Deputy
Secretary on 01.02.2024 with a noting that the file may be endorsed to the
Law Department for its opinion for preparing an LPA against the
judgment dt. 08.12.2023; that he then forwarded the file to the Secretary
on the same day with a noting that the file may be endorsed to the
Advocate General for filing Letters Patent Appeal against the said
judgment; that the file was then sent to the Advocate General on
02.02.2024 and he gave his opinion on 13.02.2024 to prefer a Letters
Patent Appeal.
3. It is stated that thereafter the file was again put up before the Under
Secretary/Deputy Secretary on 19.02.2024 with a noting that the file may
be endorsed to the Departmental Retainer for preparing Statement of Facts
for filing LPA; then an endorsement was made and the file was forwarded
by the Deputy Secretary to the Nodal Officer (Legal Cell) on the very
same day.
4. According to the applicants, the file was then endorsed to the
Departmental Retainer who prepared the Statement of Facts, pursuant to
Page 2 of 6
2025:JHHC:14481-DB
which the Nodal Officer (Legal Cell) forwarded the file to the Deputy
Secretary on 09.04.2024.
5. It is stated that the file was thereafter forwarded to the Under
Secretary on 10.04.2024 with noting that the approval of the Secretary on
the Statement of Facts may be obtained and any competent officer may
also be authorised to file the LPA.
6. The Under Secretary then forwarded the file to the Deputy
Secretary on 10.04.2024; the Deputy Secretary then forwarded it to the
Special Work Officer to obtain the approval of the Secretary of the
Department on the Statement of Facts; thereafter the Secretary to the
applicants’ Department approved the Statement of Facts; it was then
endorsed to the concerned Law Officer and he received it on 15.07.2024
and after preparing the grounds of appeal, it was filed on 15.07.2024.
7. It is stated that the delay in filing the appeal is not deliberate and
the delay may be condoned.
8. We may point out that though the judgment of the learned Single
Judge was pronounced on 08.12.2023, but application for certified copy of
the said judgment (enclosed to the paper book) was made by the
applicants on 11.07.2024, 7 months later, and no explanation is offered for
the inordinate delay in making the application for issuance of certified
copy of the judgment.
9. The averments in the application seeking condonation of delay
indicate that notwithstanding the fact that limitation for filing a Letters
Patent Appeal is only 30 days, leisurely the file was moved from table to
table within the Department.
Page 3 of 6
2025:JHHC:14481-DB
10. The Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of Government
Departments in moving the file from table to table and inordinately
delaying filing appeals against the impugned judgments.
11. In Postmaster General and others v. Living Media India
Limited and another1, the Supreme Court held:
“25. We have already extracted the reasons as mentioned in the “better
affidavit” sworn by Mr Aparajeet Pattanayak, SSRM, Air Mail Sorting
Division, New Delhi. It is relevant to note that in the said affidavit, the
Department has itself mentioned and is aware of the date of the judgment
of the Division Bench of the High Court in Office of the Chief Postmaster
v. Living Media India Ltd. as 11-9-2009. Even according to the
deponent, their counsel had applied for the certified copy of the said
judgment only on 8-1-2010 and the same was received by the
Department on the very same day. There is no explanation for not
applying for the certified copy of the impugned judgment on 11-9-2009
or at least within a reasonable time. The fact remains that the certified
copy was applied for only on 8- 1-2010 i.e. after a period of nearly four
months.
26. In spite of affording another opportunity to file better affidavit by
placing adequate material, neither the Department nor the person-
incharge has filed any explanation for not applying the certified copy
within the prescribed period. The other dates mentioned in the affidavit
which we have already extracted, clearly show that there was delay at
every stage and except mentioning the dates of receipt of the file and the
decision taken, there is no explanation as to why such delay had
occasioned. Though it was stated by the Department that the delay was
due to unavoidable circumstances and genuine difficulties, the fact
remains that from day one the Department or the person/persons
concerned have not evinced diligence in prosecuting the matter to this
Court by taking appropriate steps.
27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or
conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of
limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave
petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate
period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent1
(2012) 3 SCC 563
Page 4 of 6
2025:JHHC:14481-DBpersons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and
acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be
condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the
Government is a party before us.
28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation
of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or
lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance
substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and
circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier
decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited
bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in
view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of
limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government.”
(Emphasis supplied)
12. The said judgment has been followed by the Supreme Court in
several cases such as Commissioner of Customs Chennai v. M/s Volex
Interconnect (India) Pvt. Ltd.2, Pr. Commissioner Central Excise
Delhi-1 v. Design Dialogues India Pvt. Ltd.3, Union of India v. Central
Tibetan Schools Administration & Others4, Union of India & Others
v. Vishnu Aroma Pouching Private Limited and another5, and State of
Uttar Pradesh & Others v. Sabha Narain & others6.
13. In Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through
his legal heir7, the Supreme Court held that it is not permissible to look
into the merits of the matter as long as it is not convinced that sufficient
cause has been made out for condonation of long and inordinate delay;
that it hardly matters whether a litigant is a private party or a State or
Union of India when it comes to condoning gross delay of more than 12
years; length of delay is a relevant matter which the court must take into
2
(2022) 3 SCC 159
3
(2022) 2 SCC 327
4
(2021) 11 SCC 557
5
(2022) 9 SCC 263
6
(2022) 9 SCC 266
7
2024 INSC 262 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 489
Page 5 of 6
2025:JHHC:14481-DB
consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or
not; from the tenor of the approach of the appellants, it appears that they
want to fix their own period of limitation for instituting the proceedings
for which law has prescribed a period of limitation; once it is held that a
party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of
his long inaction, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in
such circumstances, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice
deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. It was
reiterated while considering plea for condonation of delay, Court must not
start with the merits of the main case and the Court owes a duty to first
ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking
condonation. It declared that delay should not be excused as a matter of
generosity.
14. This was also reiterated in State of Madhya Pradesh v.
Ramkumar Choudhary8.
15. In the light of above settled legal position, we are satisfied that the
applicants have not shown sufficient cause for condoning the inordinate
delay of 242 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal, and that they have
acted negligently.
16. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay (I.A. No.13259
of 2025) is dismissed. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal is also
dismissed.
17. All pending applications shall stand closed.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
Manoj/- (Rajesh Shankar, J.)
8
Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 48636 of 2024 dt.29.11.2024
Page 6 of 6
[ad_1]
Source link