Miss Supriya Malpaharia vs State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 10210 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Miss Supriya Malpaharia vs State Of Jharkhand on 28 October, 2024

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                        L.P.A No. 93 of 2024
                                --------

Miss Supriya Malpaharia, Daughter of Nimai Malpaharia, aged about 40 years, Resident of Village-Jorbahinga, PO-Tilabad, PS-Kundhit, District-Jamtara ... Appellant

Versus

1. State of Jharkhand

2. The Principal Secretary, Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Bhawan, PO & PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi

3. The Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara, PO & PS-Jamtara, District- Jamtara

4. Deputy Collector, Establishment, PO & PS- Jamtara, District-Jamtara

5. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Jamtara, PO & PS- Jamtara, District-Jamtara

6. District Welfare Officer, Jamtara, PO & PS- Jamtara, District-Jamtara

7. The Sub Divisional Officer, Jamtara, PO & PS- Jamtara, District- Jamtara

8. Circle Officer, Jamtara, PO & PS- Kundhit, District-Jamtara

9. Block Development Officer, PO & PS-Kundhit, District-Jamtara

10. Circle Officer, Jamtara, PO&PS-Kundhit, District-Jamtara ... ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

For the Appellant : Mr. Upendra Nath Mahto, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, AC to AG

--------

07/Dated: 28.10.2024

1. This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act

to condone the delay of 362 days in filing this appeal challenging the

judgment dated 25.11.2022 passed in W.P.(S) No. 657 of 2010.

2. In the application seeking condonation of delay, it is alleged

by the applicant that the file for filing L.P.A against the judgment of the

learned Single Judge was provided to the office of the Advocate, but no

date is indicated when it was done. It is also stated that the applicant

then contacted the local counsel who advised her to file appeal before

the High Court. When such advice is given by the counsel to the

applicant is not disclosed in the interlocutory application.

3. In the light of the averments contained in the application for

condonation of delay, we are of the opinion that the same does not

disclose sufficient cause for condoning the said period of delay. The

delay is inordinate and almost of an year and the applicant is expected

to be more diligent in pursuing her remedies. Therefore, this

interlocutory application is dismissed.

4. Consequently, L.P.A No. 93 of 2024 is also dismissed.

5. The interim order granted shall stand vacated.

(M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Amit/Vikas