Jharkhand High Court
Respondent No. 4/ vs Torish Yadav on 28 October, 2024
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 340 of 2024
----
The Secretary, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi Now General Manager
(Personnel & General Administration), Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, office at
Engineering Bhawan, H.E.C. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
......Respondent No. 4/Appellant
Versus
1. Torish Yadav, Son of Sri Biru Gope, Resident of village-Labga, P.O. Balkudra,
P.S. Basal, District-Ramgarh.
......Petitioner/Respondent No. 1
2. The State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary, Department of Energy,
Government of Jharkhand, office at Nepal House, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District-
Ranchi.
3. The Chairman cum Chief Managing Director, Engineering Bhawan, JUVNL,
H.E.C. Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
4. The Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, through its Chairman cum Managing
Director having its office at Engineering Bhawan, H.E.C. Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S.
Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
..Respondent No. 1, 2 and 3/Performa Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3.
...........Respondents
----
Coram: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
--------
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.C. to G.A.-V
--------
C.A.V. On 23.10.2024 Pronounced on 28/10/2024
I.A. No. 10532 of 2024 in L.P.A. No. 340 of 2024
Per M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.
This application has been filed by the applicant seeking condonation of delay of
327 days in filing this appeal challenging the judgement dated 28.06.2023 of the
learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2559 of 2018.
2. It is stated in the application for condonation of the said period of delay that
after disposal of the writ application on 28.06.2023, the file was forwarded to the
Manager (HR)/DGM(HR)/GM(P&G) on 26.09.2023, thereafter it was moved to the
Senior Manager (LC) on 03.10.2023 and it reached him on 4.10.2023.
3. After comments by the Senior Manager (HR/A), Special Legal Cell, the file was
moved to the General Manager (P&GA) on 06.10.2023. It was then moved to the DG
(HR) JUVNL from GM (P&GA) on 06.10.2023, who received it on 09.10.2023, and
then he forwarded it to the Dealing Assistant on the same date. The file was again
moved to the GM (P&GA) on 11.10.2023; the shadow file was forwarded to the Senior
Standing Counsel on 31.10.2023 and later forwarded for legal opinion on 5.2.2024
which was received on 9.2.2024.
4. According to the applicant, thereafter also the file was moved from the HRA
Department to the Law Department on 29.02.2024 from where it was forwarded to the
Director (HR) from DGM (HR) for filing Letters Patent Appeal. Thereafter, the appeal
came to be filed on 24.05.2024. It is also stated that the certified copy was obtained and
it was filed on 19.06.2024.
5. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that though the judgement of the
learned Single Judge was pronounced on 28.06.2023, but the concerned file was not
moved by the applicant to the Manager (HR) upto 26.09.2023 and no reason is
assigned for this delay.
6. It also appears that the file kept on moving from 26.09.2023 to 7.3.2024 from
table to table and from the officer to officer. It is not as if the applicant was not aware
about the period for filing Letters Patent Appeal, yet a delay of 327 days occurred in
filing the appeal from the date he received certified copy of the judgement.
7. It thus appears that the applicant has adopted a very lethargic attitude in the
matter of filing the Letters Patent Appeal and has been negligent in that regard.
8. In Postmaster General and others Vs. Living Media India Limited and
another 1, 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 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-in-
charge 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
(2012) 3 SCC 563
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."
9. These observations equally apply to the instant case where the applicant has
acted in a similar manner as in the said case.
10. The said judgement 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 & Others4, Union
of India & Others vs. Vishnu Aroma Pouching Private Limited and another5, and
State of Uttar Pradesh & Others vs. Sabha Narain & others6.
11. Counsel for the applicant relied on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Sheo
Raj Singh (deceased) through LRs & Others Vs. Union of India & Another, Civil
Appeal No. 5867 of 2015 dt. 09.10.2023.
12. In Sheo Raj Singh, the High Court had condoned the delay of 479 days in filing
a Land Acquisition Appeal in the High Court and the explanation offered found favour
with the Supreme Court. In that case, the Supreme Court observed that it was not
(2022) 3 SCC 159
(2022) 2 SCC 327
(2021) 11 SCC 557
(2022) 9 SCC 263
(2022) 9 SCC 266
hearing an application for condonation of delay, but was sitting in appeal over
discretionary exercise of the High Court granting the prayer for condonation of delay;
in the case of the former, whether to condone or not, would be the only question,
whereas in the latter, whether there has been proper exercise of discretion in favour of
grant of prayer for condonation, would be the question; and the law was well settled
that a Court of appeal should not ordinarily interfere with the discretionary exercise by
the Courts below, and that the appellate power should be exercised only when the order
challenged in appeal is clearly wrong and not when it is merely not right.
13. The said decision therefore cannot help the applicant since in the instant
application, this Court has to consider the question whether sufficient cause has been
shown to condone the period of delay. It is not considering an order passed by a
subordinate forum condoning the delay or refusing to condone it.
14. We are satisfied that no sufficient cause has been shown by the applicant for
condoning the said period of delay in filing the appeal.
15. According, this application is dismissed. Consequently, the L.P.A. is also
dismissed.
16. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J)
Rakesh/-
