Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand vs Sidharth Shankar Chaudhary on 5 June, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:14479-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
I.A. No. 1026 of 2025
In/And
L.P.A. No. 54 of 2025
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, the Personnel, Administrative Reforms and
Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building,
P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi
3. The Joint Secretary, the Personnel, Administrative Reforms and
Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building,
P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi
4. The Deputy Secretary, the Personnel, Administrative Reforms and
Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building,
P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi .. ... ... Appellants
Versus
1. Sidharth Shankar Chaudhary, son of Late Arbind Chaudhary,
resident of Gautam Green City, Anuj-31, P.O. Getalhatu, P.S. BIT
Mesra ( OP), District Ranchi-835217 ( Jharkhand)
2. The Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of
Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi
3. The Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka,
P.O. & P.S. Dumka, District Dumka
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, P.O. & P.S. Dumka, District-
Dumka ... ... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---------
For the Appellants : Mr. Kumar Rahul Kamlesh, A.C. to SC-IV
For the Respondents:
--------
Reserved on: 29.04.2025 Pronounced on: 5/06/2025
Per M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.
1) The instant interlocutory application is filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 by the applicants to condone the delay of 231 days
in filing the Letters Patent Appeal challenging the judgment dt.
-1 of 6- L.P.A. No. 54 of 2025
2025:JHHC:14479-DB
22.3.2024 of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.(S) No. 6891 of
2017.
2) In the application filed seeking condonation of delay, it is stated that
through a letter dt. 4.4.2024 received from the office of the learned
Advocate General, it was informed that the writ petition was allowed by
the learned Single Judge on 22.3.2024; till then order of the learned
Single Judge was not uploaded on the website of the High Court; on
9.4.2024, proposal was mooted for taking appropriate decision and
after going through various departmental channels, on 30.4.2024 the
Departmental Secretary sent the file to the office of the Advocate
General for obtaining necessary opinion.
3) It is then stated that on 3.5.2024, the Advocate General opined that the
L.P.A. in the present case be preferred and returned the file. Thereafter
the file was sent to the departmental retainer for preparing statement of
facts and also grounds of appeal and then it was placed before the
Departmental Secretary for approval on 12.8.2024. After such approval
was granted, memo of appeal was also drafted and the Letters Patent
Appeal was filed on 4.10.2024.
4) Thus, the Letters Patent Appeal was filed on 4.10.2024 challenging the
judgment of the learned Single Judge pronounced on 22.3.2024 with a
delay of 231 days.
5) Application for certified copy of the judgment of learned Single Judge
was made on 21.11.2024 and it was furnished on 29.11.2024, but it was
filed much later.
-2 of 6- L.P.A. No. 54 of 2025
2025:JHHC:14479-DB
6) Though the applicants were aware that the limitation for filing the
Letters Patent Appeal is only 30 days from the date of the judgment of
the learned Single Judge, no sense of urgency or diligence was shown to
ensure that the appeal is filed within the period of limitation prescribed
for the same. The file appears to have been moved from table to table
through various departmental channels without any sense of urgency
and after a period of 231 days, the appeal came to be filed.
7) 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.
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 except1
(2012) 3 SCC 563-3 of 6- L.P.A. No. 54 of 2025
2025:JHHC:14479-DBmentioning 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
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)
8) These observations equally apply to the instant case where the applicants
have acted in a similar manner as in the said case.
9) The said judgment has been followed by the Supreme Court in several
cases such as Commissioner of Customs Chennai vs. M/s Volex
-4 of 6- L.P.A. No. 54 of 2025
2025:JHHC:14479-DBInterconnect (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
10) In Union of India & Anr. Vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D)
through his LR7, 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
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
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
-5 of 6- L.P.A. No. 54 of 2025
2025:JHHC:14479-DB
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.
11) This was also reiterated in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramkumar
Choudhary8.
12) We are satisfied that in the instant case, the respondents have not
shown sufficient cause for condoning the above period of delay and
have acted negligently in taking steps to file the appeal within time.
13) Therefore, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. .
Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal is also dismissed.
14) All pending applications shall stand closed.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
N.A.F.R.
Sharda/-
8
Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 48636 of 2024 dt. 29.11.2024
-6 of 6- L.P.A. No. 54 of 2025