Jharkhand High Court

Jharkhand Urja Vitran Nigam Ltd ( ... vs M/S. Synergy Polypacks Pvt. Ltd. Having ... on 24 April, 2025

Author: Rajesh Shankar

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

                                                                 2025:JHHC:12107-DB




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                        I.A. No. 1435 of 2025
                                In/And
                         L.P.A. No. 391 of 2023
      Jharkhand Urja Vitran Nigam Ltd ( earlier The Jharkhand State
     Electricity Board) through its Law Officer Sri Mithilesh Kumar, aged
     about 57 years, son of Sri R.B. Choudhary, Resident of Sector-II
     Dhurwa, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi, having its
     office at Jharkhand Urja Vitran Nigam Ltd, Opposite Nepal House,
     P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi..     ...    ...    Appellant
                                Versus
     1. M/s. Synergy Polypacks Pvt. Ltd. having its work at Govindpur,
         Dhanbad, through its Director Sri Rahul Goyal, son of S.K. Goyal,
         resident of at 103, Lav Kush Apartment, Sri Ram Vatika, Dhaiya,
         Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District: Dhanbad
     2. The Assessing Officer-cum- Electrical Superintending Engineer,
         Electric Supply Circle, Dhanbad, Jharkhand State Electricity Board
         officiating at Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad
                                           ...     ...   Respondents
                                ---------

     CORAM:          HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
                            ---------
     For the Appellant :    Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Sr. S.C. I
     For the Respondents:   Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Pathak, Advocate
                            --------
     Reserved on: 16.04.2025             Pronounced on: 24 / 4 /2025
     M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.(Oral)

1) I.A. No. 1435 of 2025 is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,

1963 by the applicants to condone the delay of 235 days in filing this

appeal challenging the judgment dt. 2.11.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.

3638 of 2010 by of the learned Single Judge.

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

contended that the counsel for the applicant immediately informed the

2025:JHHC:12107-DB

applicant about the outcome of the writ petition on the very day for the

purpose of filing the Letters Patent Appeal; the file was then sent by the

applicant to the General Manager Electric Supply Circle, Dhanbad

through a letter dt. 11.11.2022; the Deputy General Manager ( R) , ESA,

Dhanbad on 12.11.2022 requested the Superintending Engineer to file the

appeal in seven days and informed the applicant company about it; then

the statement of facts and summary of case was prepared and submitted

by the Electric Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle, Dhanbad

on 20.12.2022.

3) It is contended that the Electric Superintending Engineer also

sought opinion from the Senior Manager ( Law) on 20.12.2022; the

General Manager-cum- Chief Engineer requested on 27.12.2022 to

provide relevant documents to the General Manager ( R) so that steps be

taken for filing Letters Patent Appeal; the Departmental file was then sent

to Advocate General for opinion in January 2023; opinion of the

Advocate General was forwarded to the department on 3.4.2023 and file

was returned on 6.4.2023.

4) Thereafter the Deputy General Manager ( R) on 25.4.2023

requested Senior Manager ( Law) of JUVNL to go through the opinion of

the Advocate General and ensure the filing of the Letters Patent Appeal;

after getting case file, memo of appeal was drafted by the State counsel

and thereafter draft of the memo of appeal was sent to the applicant

department for final approval on 23.5.2023.

5) It is stated that thereafter summer vacation intervened from

21.5.2023 to 11.6.2023, and the applicant department was unable to

2025:JHHC:12107-DB

contact the conducting counsel in the matter, and so the file was kept

pending in the Law Department. After the summer vacation ended, the

Letters Patent Appeal was filed on 25.7.2023. It is stated that some delay

occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal which was beyond the control

of the applicant and that they have good chance of success in the appeal.

6) Admittedly, the time within which the Letters Patent Appeal is to

be filed challenging the judgment of learned single Judge is only 30 days

from the date of knowledge of the judgment.

7) Though the judgment of the learned single Judge was pronounced on

2.11.2022, the appeal was filed on 25.7.2023.

8) Initially an I.A. No. 7697 of 2024 was filed under section 5 of the

Limitation Act to condone the delay, but the number of days of delay

which is to be condoned, was left blank in the application. Therefore, this

Court directed the applicants on 22.1.2025 to file a proper application for

condonation of delay and then the instant interlocutory application has

been filed.

9) It is admitted by the applicant that on the very day on which the

writ petition was disposed of, the counsel had informed the applicant

about the need of filing a Letters Patent Appeal, but the file was moved

from table to table by the applicants, and though the Advocate General

opinion was itself received on 3.4.2023, the appeal was filed three months

later on 25.7.2023.

10) At every stage, there has been delay in taking steps to file the

Letters Patent Appeal.

2025:JHHC:12107-DB

11) 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 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 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.

(2012) 3 SCC 563

2025:JHHC:12107-DB

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." (emphasis supplied)

12) 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 & Others4, Union of India

(2022) 3 SCC 159

(2022) 2 SCC 327

(2021) 11 SCC 557

2025:JHHC:12107-DB

& Others vs. Vishnu Aroma Pouching Private Limited and another5,

and State of Uttar Pradesh & Others vs. Sabha Narain & others6.

13) In Union of India & Anr. Vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D)

through his LR7, the Supreme Court held that it could not look into the

merits of the matter as long as it is not convinced that sufficient cause

has been made out for condonation of long and inordinate delay; that it

hardly matters whether a litigant is a private party or a State or Union of

India when it comes to condoning gross delay of more than 12 years;

length of delay is a relevant matter which the Court must take into

consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned

or not; from the tenor of the approach of the appellants, it appears that

they want to fix their own period of limitation for instituting the

proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation; once it

is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on

merits because of his long inaction, it cannot be presumed to be non-

deliberate delay and in such circumstances, he cannot be heard to plead

that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the

technical considerations. It was reiterated while considering plea for

condonation of delay, Court must not start with the merits of the main

case and the Court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the