The State Of Jharkhand Through ... vs Amit Kumar
2022 Latest Caselaw 693 Jhar

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)

                              LPA No. 518 of 2019
                                      ------

The State of Jharkhand through Divisional Forest Officer, Hazaribagh West Forest Division, Hazaribagh, namely, P.R. Naidu, son of P. Ananda Rao at present posted as Divisional Forest Officer, Hazaribagh West Forest Division, Hazaribagh having its office situated at Van Bhawan, at Hazaribagh, PO GPO, Hazaribagh, PS Kotwali, District Hazaribagh, ..... ..... Respondent No.3/Appellant Versus

1. Amit Kumar, son of Kalap Nath Pandey, resident of Anandpuri Colony, PO & PS Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh.

..... ..... Petitioner/Respondent No.1

2. Dy. Commissioner, Hazaribagh, PO & PS Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh.

3. Secretary, Department of Forests Environment and Climate Change, Government of Jharkhand at Nepal House, PO & PS Doranda, District Ranchi. ..... ..... Respondent Nos.2 & 3/Proforma Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 (Through VC)

------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA

-------

For the Appellant : Mr. Sreenu Garapati, SC-III For the Respondents : None

-------

th Order No.06/Dated: 24 February, 2022 This is an assigned matter by virtue of order dated 8 th February 2022 passed on the administrative side by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, High Court of Jharkhand.

2. This Letters Patent Appeal was filed on 6 th August 2019 and since then has remained in defects. Not only that, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed beyond the period of limitation and, surprisingly, though a stay petition has been filed by the State, LPA No. 518 of 2019 has not been prosecuted by the State in the last more than two and half years - matter was first posted before the Bench on 13th December 2021 and that too with defects.

3. On a pointed query from the Court, Mr. Sreenu Garapati, the learned State counsel is unable to put forth any plausible reason why defects in LPA No. 518 of 2019 have yet not been removed by the appellant.

4. Though the present Letters Patent Appeal is still with defects, we have glanced through the writ Court's order to satisfy ourselves whether by not granting further indulgence in this matter the State would suffer serious prejudice and loss.

5. In the order dated 16th April 2019 passed in WP(C) No. 4225 of 2018 the learned writ Court has rendered a decision that the order passed by the authorized officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer suffered from serious infirmities in law in as much as without looking at the documents showing genuine purchase of coal the order of confiscation was passed. The writ Court arrived at such conclusion in the background of the judgments in "Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan" AIR 1964 SC 477, "Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque and others" AIR 1955 SC 233, "Sawarn Singh v. State of Punjab" (1976) 2 SCC 868, "Heinz India (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P." (2012) 5 SCC 443, "Thansingh Nathmal v. Supdt. of Taxes" AIR 1964 SC 1419, "Pepsico India Holding (P) Ltd. v. Krishna Kant Pandey" (2015) 4 SCC 270 and "Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram" (1986) 4 SCC 447.

6. In any judicial proceeding the Court is required to examine bona fide of the parties. Suppression of material facts, filing of misleading affidavit etc. are good grounds not to entertain such petitions filed by a party to the litigation. Similarly, delay and laches in prosecuting the matter without any reasonable cause disentitle the applicant in seeking any relief from the Court - a negligent litigant does not deserve indulgence of the Court. The situation becomes worse when appeal is filed against an order passed in favour of the opposite party. Not only serious prejudice is caused to the other party by delay in filing the petition and/or prosecuting the matter before the appellate Court, in some cases by the time the appeal is taken up on Board for hearing and finally decided the cause might be lost. The State of Jharkhand which slept over the matter for more than two and half years and did not prosecute the present Letters Patent Appeal must suffer the consequences.

7. For the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter and, therefore, LPA No. 518 of 2019 is dismissed.

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Nibha/Madhav/RK