Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand Through The vs M/S Flowmore Limited Through Its on 6 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No.511 of 2022
----
The State of Jharkhand through the
Secretary, Department of Labour,
Employment & Training & Others ... Appellants
-versus-
M/s Flowmore Limited through its
Manager (Commercial)-cum-
Authorised Signatory, namely,
Mr. Raihan Ahmed & Others ... Respondents
----
CORAM : SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J.
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
----
For the Appellants : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate
Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate
Mr. Adamya Kerketta, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Richa Sanchita, Advocate
----
07/ 06.04.2023 I.A. No. 9955 of 2022
Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties on the question
of condonation of delay. There is a delay of 182 days in preferring this Intra-
Court Appeal.
It appears from the statements made in the interlocutory
application for condonation of delay that the delay occasioned due to laches
and inaction on the part of the employees of the State Government. For the
laches of an employee, the interest of the State and Society should not suffer.
Moreover, in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and
Another versus Mst. Katiji and Others reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 [AIR
1987 1353] the Supreme Court has laid down the principles for dealing with
applications for condonation. We consider it appropriate to reproduce the
same. The Supreme Court at paragraph 3 of the said judgment has observed
as under:-
3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone
delay by enacting Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of
1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice
to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. The
expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature
is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law
in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of
justice - that being the life-purpose for the existence of the
institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this
Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in
matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not
appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in
the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on
principle as it is realized that :
1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by
lodging an appeal late.
2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a
meritorious matter being thrown out at the very
threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As
against this when delay is condoned the highest
that can happen is that a cause would be decided
on merits after hearing the parties.
3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not
mean that a pedantic approach should be made.
Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay?
The doctrine must be applied in a rational common
sense pragmatic manner.
4. When substantial justice and technical
considerations are pitted against each other, cause
of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for
the other side cannot claim to have vested right in
injustice being done because of a non-deliberate
delay.
5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned
deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence,
or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not
stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he
runs a serious risk.
6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not
on account of its power to legalize injustice or
technical grounds but because it is capable of
removing injustice and is expected to do so.
Even the Supreme Court also took into consideration the
applicability of Section 5 to the State or the State instrumentalities. The
Supreme Court further held that the fact that it was the 'State' which was
seeking condonation and not a private party was altogether irrelevant. The
doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants, including the State as
a litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an
even-handed manner. There is no warrant for according a step-motherly
treatment when the 'State' is the applicant.
In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that delay of
182 days in preferring this appeal should be condoned. We are inclined to
allow this interlocutory application. Delay of 182 days in preferring this appeal
is condoned.
This interlocutory application stands allowed.
L.P.A. No. 511 of 2022
Matter be listed on 11th May, 2023.
Learned counsel for the appellants-State is at liberty to seek an
adjournment in the Contempt Application before the Bench, in seisin of the
matter, in view of the condonation of delay and pendency of this Letters Patent
Appeal.
(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-02
