Jharkhand High Court
Manoranjan Kumar Singh vs The Union Of India Through The ... on 18 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)
L.P.A No. 42 of 2019
Manoranjan Kumar Singh, s/o Ramyatan Prasad Singh, r/o Flat No.SE-2,
Annoda Apartment, South Office Para, PO & PS-Doranda, District-Ranchi
(Jharkhand) .... Appellant
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Secretary of Ministry of Labour and
Employment, New Delhi
2. The Chairman, Board of Mining Examination, Constituted under Coal
Mines Regulation 1957, Directorate General of Mine Safety, Dhanbad. P.O-
Dhanbad & P.S - Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand)
3. The Managing Director Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.
Khanij Bhavan, Near University Ground, 132 ft, Ring Road, Ahmedabad,
Gujarat
4. The General Manager(P&A),Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation
Ltd. 132ft Ring Road, Khanij Bhavan, University Ground, Ahmedabad,
Gujarat.
5. The General Manager (L&P) of Gujarat Mineral Development
corporation 132 ft. Ring Road, Near University Ground,Vestrapur,
Ahmedabad, Gujarat
6. The Manager (P) of Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.
Lignite Project Panandhro, Kutch (Bhuj), Gujarat .....Respondents
--------------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
For the Appellant : Mr. Harendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Dharmendra Kr. Maltiyar, Advocate
For the Union of India : Mr. Devanand Kumar, C.G.C
---------------
ORDER
18th May 2023
Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
I.A. No.9505 of 2019
This application has been filed under section 5 of the Limitation
Act seeking condonation of delay of 1133 days in filing L.P.A No.42 of
2019.
2. Mr. Harendra Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the
applicant states that on account of adverse situations and paucity of money
the applicant could not file this Letters Patent Appeal within the period of
limitation.
3. The applicant has stated as under:
"4. That the petitioner accepting this judgment as final as his ill
fate, started to manage money in his adversity to file this case in
the Gujrat High Court but he could not succeed to manage money
in time in his state of adversity."
4. However, we do not find any explanation whatsoever indicated
in this application for condonation of delay as to what were those adverse
situations and when, how and from whom he mobilized resources for filing
the present Letters Patent Appeal.
5. The applicant has also referred to several judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court including "Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of
India & Anr." (2004) 6 SCC 254, "Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India
& Anr." (2006) 6 SCC 207, "Rajendran Chingaravelu v. R.K. Mishra,
Additional Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors." (2010) 1 SCC 457 and
"Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India" (2014) 9 SCC 329 to support his
stand that he has a good case on merits.
6. We have also examined the matter on merits to form a prima-
facie opinion whether the applicant would suffer irreparable loss if delay in
filing this Letters Patent Appeal is not condoned.
7. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the
ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Jharkhand to
entertain W.P(S) No.78 of 2015. The learned counsel for the appellant has
submitted that the Competency Certificate was issued by the respondent
no.2 and a prayer for a direction upon the respondent nos.1 and 2 to affirm,
confirm and convey to the Mineral Development Corporation Limited that
Competency Certificate granted under Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1957 is
as good as original has been made in the writ petition and, therefore, the
High Court of Jharkhand has territorial jurisdiction to entertain W.P(S)
No.78 of 2015.
8. The expression "cause of action" refers to bundle of facts which
the plaintiff/applicant/petitioner shall be required to prove to claim a relief
from the Court. This would necessarily mean that a fact which is necessary
to establish the claim only is required to be proved in the Court of law. The
Competency Certificate a copy of which has been annexed by the applicant
vide Annexure-2 in the present appeal records that the certificate (original)
shall be issued on submission of Diploma Certificate in original. This is also
of vital importance that the applicant came before the writ Court challenging
the so-called resignation on 19th October 2011 forced by his employer which
is situated at Ahmedabad, Gujarat. This therefore would evince no doubt
that the applicant is required to prove only such facts which are necessary to
establish that the forced resignation was bad in law.
9. While so, merely because a provisional certificate has been
issued from the Board of Mining Examination, Directorate General of Mine,
Safety at Dhanbad, the High Court of Jharkhand shall have no jurisdiction to
entertain the writ petition.
10. Moreover, having found no justification in the application
under section 5 of the Limitation Act, I.A No.9505 of 2019 is dismissed.
L.P.A No. 42 of 2019
Consequently, L.P.A No.42 of 2019 is dismissed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated : 18th May 2023
sudhir/N.A.F.R.
