Jharkhand High Court
State Of Jharkhand vs Ratnesh Sharma on 3 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
LPA No. 212 of 2022
With
I.A. No. 11594 of 2022
1. State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Depart. Of Health, Medical Education &
Family Welfare, Ranchi
2. Directorate of Health Services, through its Director in Chief, Ranchi
3. National Health Mission, through its Mission Director, Ranchi
4. State Programme Officer (Vector Borne Disease)-cum-States Vector Borne Disease
Officer, Ranchi
5. Chief Medical Officer-cum-Civil Surgeon, Jamtara
6. District Vector Borne Disease Officer, Jamtara ... ... ... Appellants
Versus
1. Ratnesh Sharma
2. Ahmad Reza Perwez
3. Union of India
4. National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme, Govt. of India Enterprises, New
Delhi ... ... ... Respondents
---------
CORAM: SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J.
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
---------
For the Appellants: Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III
Ms. Rishi Bharati, AC to AAG-III
For the Respondents: M/s. Sumeet Gadodia, Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, Aanya,
Ankit Kr. & Anant Vikram, Advocates
---------
05/Dated: 03.05.2023
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court passed
the following, (Per. Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C J.)
ORDER
2. The I.A No. 11594 of 2022 has been filed under Section 5 of
the limitation Act, 1963 by the State of Jharkhand to condone the delay
of 747 days in preferring the Letters Patent Appeal challenging the
impugned order passed on 10.09.2018.
3. We have carefully heard the learned counsel for the State and
the learned counsel for private respondents. A detailed objection has
been filed.
4. After careful examination of the application for condonation
of delay which reveals that the factum of passing of the impugned
judgment came to the notice of appellants on receipt of the contempt
application and accordingly, file was immediately marked to the
concerned State Malaria Officer vide note sheet dated 31.01.2019.
The file was advised to be put up before L4, Prashakha vide note sheet
dated 07.02.2019.
The departmental retainer accordingly prepared and submitted the
statement of fact on 22.04.2019 and was finally approved. However,
it was again activated after receipt of letter dated 14.02.2020 of the
Advocate General Office and steps were taken for preparing the file.
On 14.2.2020 the contempt application was heard and it was
communicated to the appellants that this Court was of the view that
from Memo No. 317 (VBD) dated 09.04.2019 it appears that
respondents have passed the order in a mechanical manner and
accordingly file was put up before Section 15 for needful. The
appellants further submits that because of pandemic, they could not
file the case in time. In fact, we have examined the stamp report made
in this case. The stamp reporter has already taken into consideration
the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 and has calculated
the delay. If the said period is calculated, the delay will be of more
than four years.
5. However, we are of the opinion that the appellants have only
stated about movement of file from one department to another and this
short statement cannot be taken into consideration for condoning the
delay as it does not constitute an sufficient ground for condoning the
delay.
6. In this connection, learned counsel for the respondents relies
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Postmaster General & Ors. VRs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr.
reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court
considered the application for condoning the delay of 427 days in
filing the SLP before it. The said principle applies here and to properly
appreciate we quote the exact words used by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court while rejecting the application for condoning the delay. The said
observation is read as follows:-
"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.
29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the
government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities
that unless they have reasonable and acceptable
explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort,
there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the
file was kept pending for several months/years due to
considerable degree of procedural red tape in the
process. The government departments are under a
special obligation to ensure that they perform their
duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation the
government departments. The law shelters everyone
under the same light and should not be swirled for the
benefit of a few.
30. Considering the fact that there was no proper
explanation offered by the Department for the delay
except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the
Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable
and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge
delay. Accordingly, the appeal s are liable to be
dismissed on the ground of delay."
7. Subsequently, the aforesaid judgment has been quoted by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai & Ors. Vrs. Uday N. Murudkar reported in (2021)
11 SCC 816 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that
while considering the application to condone the delay of 227 days,
that delay is sought to be explained by stating that same is
unintentional and on account of administrative procedure. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that it does not exist to protect
the administrative inefficiency and incompetence in being able to avail
of legal remedies by the State Government more so in the context of
judgment in the case of Postmaster General (Supra) and there is no
reason whatsoever to condone the delay. In the case of Union of India
Vrs. Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. reported in (2022) SCC Online
SC 1580 similar view has been taken. In both the cases costs of
Rs.10,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively have been awarded to be
paid by the appellants. Thus, it is clear that appellants have not
established that they were prevented from, filing the appeal in time,
by sufficient cause.
8. In that view of the matter, we find no merit in this application
for condoning the delay and therefore the application for condonation
of delay is dismissed being devoid of merit with a cost of Rs.10,000/-
to be paid by the appellants to be deposited in the Mediation Centre in
JHALSA, within a period of 30 days, failing which, appropriate steps
shall be taken by the Member Secretary, JHALSA for recovery of the
said as arrears under the provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Public
Demand Recovery Act, 1914. Thus, I.A No.11594 of 2022 stands
dismissed.
9. In view of the dismissal of the interlocutory application, the
instant Letters Patent Appeal also stands dismissed.
10. All pending Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of.
11. No orders as to costs.
12. Grant urgent certified copy of this order as per the Rules.
(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)
(Ananda Sen, J.)
N.A.F.R.
Anjali/-
