Jharkhand High Court
Central Coal Field Limited Through Its ... vs Jhalo Devi on 25 September, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 477 of 2024
With
I.A. No. 10031 of 2024
-----
1. Central Coal Field Limited through its Chairman- cum-
Managing Director, having its office at Darbhanga House,
Ranchi, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali, District-Ranchi.
2. The Director (Personnel), Central Coalfields Limited, having
its office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-
Kotwali, District-Ranchi.
3. General Manager (MP & IR), Central Coalfields Limited,
having its office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O.-G.P.O.,
P.S.-Kotwali, District-Ranchi.
4. The General Manager, Argada Area, Central Coalfields
Limited, Argada, P.O.-Argada, P.S.-Ramgarh, District-
Ramgarh, Jharkhand.
5. The Staff Officer (Personnel), Argada Area, Central
Coalfields Limited, Argada, P.O.-Argada, P.S.-Ramgarh,
District-Ramgarh, Jharkhand.
6. The Project Officer, Sirka Colliery, Central Coalfields
Limited, Argada, P.O.-Argada, P.S.-Ramgarh, District-
Ramgarh, Jharkhand.
... ... Respondents/Appellants
Versus
Jhalo Devi, wife of Late Bandhua Mahto, resident of At
Sirka, P.O. Argada, P.S. Ramgarh, District-Ranchi
(Jharkhand).
...... Writ Petitioner/Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
-------
For the Appellants : Mr. Amit Kr. Sinha, Advocate
------
th
Order No. 02/Dated 25 September, 2024
I.A. No. 10031 of 2024:
1. This application is filed by the applicants under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone delay of
307 days in filing this appeal challenging the judgment
dated 04.09.2023 passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.7299 of 2019.
2. Though the judgment was pronounced on the said
date but the applicants had made application for issuance
of certified copy of the same on 28.06.2024 without giving
any reason as to why said application was not applied for
shortly after the order was pronounced.
3. The applicants are undoubtedly aware that the
period of limitation for filing the Letters Patent Appeal is 30
days from the date of judgment.
4. We are satisfied that the applicants had not shown
sufficient cause for condoning the said inordinate period of
delay.
5. In Postmaster General and others Vs. Living
Media India Limited and another, (2012) 3 SCC 563
the Supreme Court has held that in this era of
instantaneous communication, the Government
Department should also act diligently in pursuing their
rights in appeal or review. The relevant paragraphs of the
said judgment are being quoted as under:
"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 11.09.2009. Even
according to the deponent, their counsel had applied for the
certified copy of the said judgment only on 08.01.2010 and
the same was received by the Department on the very same
day. There is no explanation for not applying for certified
copy of the impugned judgment on 11.09.2009 or at least
within a reasonable time. The fact remains that the certified
copy was applied only on 08.01.2010, 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
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."
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., (2022) 3 SCC 159; Pr. Commissioner Central
Excise Delhi-1 vs. Design Dialogues India Pvt. Ltd.,
(2022) 2 SCC 327; Union of India vs. Central Tibetan
Schools Administration & others, (2021) 11 SCC 557;
Union of India & others vs. Vishnu Aroma Pouching
Private Limited and another, (2022) 9 SCC 263; and
State of Uttar Pradesh & others vs. Sabha Narain &
others, (2022) 9 SCC 266.
7. Having regard to the said legal position we see no
merit in this application.
8. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal is also dismissed.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Birendra/Saurabh
