Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... vs Jagran Lohra on 12 November, 2024
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 38 of 2024
-----
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, School
Education & Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, at
Project Building, P.O.+P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi.
2. The Director, Directorate of School Education & Literacy,
Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi at Project Building, P.O.+P.S.
Dhurwa, Ranchi.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharsawan,
P.O.+P.S.Seraikella, Kharsawan.
4. The District Superintendent of Education, P.O.+P.S.
Seraikella-Kharsawan. ... ... Appellants
Versus
1. Jagran Lohra
2. Gurupada Singh Munda
3. Krishna Chandra Soy
4. Nand Kishore Nayak
5. Ashok Singh
6. Ravindra Nath Lohra
7. Bhairav Chandra Das
8. Madan Mohan Soren
9. Mahadeo Minz
10. Satya Narayan Oraon
11. Seral Kisku
12. Ram Prasad Mahto
13. Sunil Kumar Toppo
14. Laxman Singh Sardar
15. Abinash Pradhan
16. Shreekant Lohra
17. Vijay Kumar Soy
18. Kamlakant Singh Munda
19. Sri Ram Ho
20. Yogendra Singh Munda. ... ... Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-------
For the Appellants : Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. S.C.-II
For the Respondents : None
------
6/12.11.2024
I.A. No. 831 of 2024.
This application is filed by the appellant seeking
condonation of delay of 1172 days in filing this appeal
challenging the judgment dated 12.10.2018 in W.P.(S) No.
2852 of 2018.
2. In the application is filed seeking condonation of
delay, after raising some contentions on the merits, it is
contended that the order of the learned single judge was
communicated to the department and the file was put up
before the office of Secretary of the School Education &
Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand and
thereafter it was forwarded to the office of the Secretary to
the department through a noting but no dates are
mentioned. It is not even stated as to when a decision was
taken to challenge the order of the learned single judge. It is
claimed that the delay was on account of certain procedural
technicalities and was not deliberate and that the
appellants are government functionaries having several
layers of decision making which consumed much time.
3. The absence of any dates in the application as well
as the pleading taken in the application seeking
condonation of delay appears to be vague and indicates a
lethargic attitude being taken for filing the appeal.
4. 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
(2012) 3 SCC 563
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-incharge 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
except mentioning 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 1 (2012) 3 SCC 563 3 L.P.A. No.340 of 2024
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."
5. These observations equally apply to the instant case
where the applicant has acted in a similar manner as in the
said case.
6. The said judgment has been followed by the
Supreme Court in several cases such as Commissioner of
Customs Chennai vs. M/s Volex Interconnect (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 & Others 4 ,
Union of India & Others vs. Vishnu Aroma Pouching
Private Limited and another 5 , and State of Uttar
Pradesh & Others vs. Sabha Narain & others6.
7. Having regard to the said legal position and the
facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that
no sufficient cause has been shown by the applicant for
condoning the inordinate period of 1172 days in filing this
appeal. Therefore, this application is dismissed.
8. Consequently, the LPA is also dismissed.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Amardeep/vikas
(2022) 3 SCC 159
(2022) 2 SCC 327
(2021)11 SCC 557
(2022)9SCC 263
(2022) 9 SCC 266
