Mithilesh Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 4638 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Mithilesh Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 April, 2025

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

                                                          2025:JHHC:10813-DB




  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 L.P.A. No. 51 of 2024
               (with I.A. No.4268 of 2024)
1. Mithilesh Kumar, aged about 55 years, Son of Late Deonath Prasad,
2. Prahlad Tiwari, aged about 61 years, Son of Late Yash Tiwari,
   Both residents of Warder Line, RINPAS, P.O. & P.S.- Kanke, Dist. -
   Ranchi
                                              ...    Petitioners/Appellants
                          Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Director, Ranchi,
3. The Ranchi Institute of Neuro Psychology Allied Sciences (RINPAS),
   Office at Kanke, P.O. & P.S.- Kanke, Dist. - Ranchi.
                                         ...      Respondents/Respondents
                          ---------
CORAM:              HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
                          ---------
For the Appellants:       Mr. Mithilesh Kumar (In Person)
For the Respondents:      Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Sr. S.C.-I
                          ---------
Reserved on: 11.03.2025                      Pronounced on: 08/04/2025
Per M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.

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

1963, to condone the delay of 467 days in filing this appeal challenging

the judgment dt. 14.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.

(S) No. 3259 of 2020.

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

contended that the appellant No.2, after superannuation, was residing in

his native village situated at Rohtas and he decided to meet his advocate in

the month of January 2024 and then, decided to challenge the order of the

learned Single Judge.

2025:JHHC:10813-DB

3. It is stated that the Letters Patent Appeal was drafted and filed on

23.01.2024 which resulted in the delay.

4. It is stated that both appellants are Class-IV employees and they

arranged money for filing the appeal and the delay in filing the appeal was

not intentional but due to the circumstances beyond their control.

5. Later, a supplementary affidavit was filed again reiterating what

was stated in the original application.

6. Admittedly, the applicants had applied for issuance of certified

copy of the judgment on 08.12.2023, though the judgment had been

pronounced on 14.09.2022, more than a year later.

7. No explanation has been furnished by the appellants as to why they

could not contact their counsel and find out what happened to the writ

petition till January 2024.

8. It is clear that the applicants had not been diligent in taking steps to

file the Letters Patent Appeal within the period of 30 days. We hold that

they have not shown sufficient cause for condoning the inordinate delay of

467 days in filing this appeal.

9. Therefore, I.A. No. 4268 of 2024 is dismissed. Consequently, the

Letters Patent Appeal is also dismissed.

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

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Manoj/-