Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand Through The … vs Dr. Ram Krit Singh on 30 June, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:17088-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
I.A. No. 11753 of 2024
In/and
L.P.A. No. 610 of 2024
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Government
of Jharkhand, Higher, Technical Education & Skill Development
Department, Yojna Bhawan, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda,
District-Ranchi-834002, Jharkhand.
2. The Principal Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Planning &
Finance Department, Jharkhand Mantralaya, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa,
District-Ranchi-834004, Jharkhand.
3. The Deputy Secretary to the Government, Department of Higher,
Technical Education & Skill Development, Jharkhand, Yojna Bhawan,
Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi-834002,
Jharkhand.
4. The Treasury Officer, District Treasury, Ranchi, P.O.-Ranchi G.P.O.,
P.S.-Kotwali, District-Ranchi, 834001, Jharkhand
... ... ... ... ... ... Appellants
Versus
1. Dr. Ram Krit Singh, S/o Late Narsingh Singh, (Retired Principal,
Government Polytechnics Cadre) retired from the equivalent post of
the Joint Director, Science & Technology, Jharkhand, Ranchi while on
deputation, resident of House No. C-29 (Pansa Kothi), at & P.O.-
Harmu Housing Colony, P.S.-Argora, Town & District-Ranchi-834002,
Jharkhand.
2. The Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand Hinoo, P.O. & P.S.-
Doranda, District-Ranchi-834002, Jharkhand).
3. The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Centralized
Pension Processing Centre, 4th Floor, Administrative Office Building,
J.C. Road, P.O, P.S. & District-Patna-800001, Bihar
... ... ... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---------
For the Appellants : Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Sr.S.C. I
For the Respondents: Mr. Sunil Kumar Agarwal Advocate
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
(For the SBI)
---------
Reserved on: 24.06.2025 Pronounced on: 30/06/2025
Page 1 of 6
2025:JHHC:17088-DB
Per M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.
1) This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,
1963 to condone the delay of 266 days in filing the Letters
Patent Appeal challenging the judgment dt. 02.01.2024 passed
by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 890 of 2018.
2) In the application filed for condonation of delay, it is stated that
the file was put up before the Assistant director (Law Cell) for
taking further steps in the matter; that he forwarded the file to
the Assistant Director on 15.02.2024; the latter put up the file
before the Under Secretary (Law) on 20.02.2024 with a noting
that the file may be endorsed to the Law Department for its
opinion; and it was then placed before the Director/Principal
Secretary on 26.02.2024 with the same noting. The Secretary
then forwarded it to the Under Secretary (Law) again saying
that opinion of Law Department may be obtained; file was then
endorsed to the Departmental retainer for preparing grounds of
appeal on 31.05.2024 and he prepared the grounds of appeal
on 26.06.2024.
3) Thereafter, the file was forwarded on 28.06.2024 to the
Advocate General for his consultation and he gave opinion for
filing a Letters Patent Appeal through one of his law officers and
thereafter the appeal was filed on 24.10.2024.
4) A supplementary counter affidavit is also filed thereafter on
merits of the case of the respondent in the writ petition.
5) It is, thus, apparent that though the judgment of the learned
Single Judge was pronounced on 02.01.2024 in the presence of
the applicants’ counsel, and the applicants were aware of the
said order even by 08.01.2024, and they were also aware that a
Page 2 of 6
2025:JHHC:17088-DB
Letters Patent Appeal is to be filed within 30 days from the
judgment of the learned Single Judge, the applicants filed the
Letters Patent Appeal on 24.10.2024 with a delay of 266 days.
They had not even applied for issuance of certified copy till
24.09.2024 and after securing the certified copy on 15.10.2024,
the appeal was filed.
6) It appears that the file was being pushed from table to table
periodically and leisurely without any sense of urgency.
7) This practice of moving the file from table to table and taking an
unduly longtime in filing appeals has been criticized by the
Supreme Court in several cases.
8) In Postmaster General and others Vs. 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.
1
(2012) 3 SCC 563
Page 3 of 6
2025:JHHC:17088-DB
26. In spite of affording another opportunity to file better
affidavit by placing adequate material, neither the
Department nor the person-in-charge 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 competent persons 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
Page 4 of 6
2025:JHHC:17088-DB
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)
9) These observations equally apply to the instant case where the
applicants have acted in a similar manner as in the said case.
10) The said judgment has been followed by the Supreme Court in
several cases such as Commissioner of Customs Chennai
vs. M/s Volex Interconnect (India) Pvt. Ltd.2, Pr.
Commissioner Central Excise Delhi-1 vs. Design Dialogues
India Pvt. Ltd.3, Union of India vs. Central Tibetan Schools
Administration & Others4, Union of India & Others vs.
Vishnu Aroma Pouching Private Limited and another5, and
State of Uttar Pradesh & Others vs. Sabha Narain & others6.
11) In Union of India & Anr. Vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy
(D) through his LR 7, the Supreme Court held that it could not
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 consideration
while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not;
from the tenor of the approach of the appellants, it appears that
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:17088-DB
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.
12) This was also reiterated in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.
Ramkumar Choudhary8.
13) In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that
the applicants have been negligent in taking steps to file the
Letters Patent Appeal and they have not shown sufficient cause
for condoning the same.
14) Therefore, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.
Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal is also dismissed.
15) All pending applications shall stand closed.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
MM
NAFR
Cp.02
8
Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 48636 of 2024 dt. 29.11.2024
Page 6 of 6