Jharkhand High Court
Department Of Higher And Technical ... vs Upendra Prasad on 24 April, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:12122-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
I.A. No. 7969 of 2024
In/And
L.P.A. No. 580 of 2024
1. Department of Higher and Technical Education, Project Building,
P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi
2. Director, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Project
Building, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi
.. ... ... Appellants
Versus
1. Upendra Prasad, son of Sri Damodar Prasad, resident of House No.
752, Road No. 2, Obaria Road, P.O.- Hatia, P.S.- Hatia, District-
Ranchi
2. Ranchi University through its Vice Chancellor having its office at
Ranchi University Campus, P.O.- GPO, P.S.- Kotwali, District-
Ranchi
3. Registrar, Ranchi University having its office at Ranchi University
Campus, P.O.- GPO, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi
... ... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---------
For the Appellants : Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Sr. S.C. I
For the Respondents: Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate
--------
Reserved on: 15.04.2025 Pronounced on: 24 / 4 /2025
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.(Oral)
1) I.A. No. 7969 of 2024 is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act, 1963 by the applicants to condone the delay of 289 days in filing this
appeal challenging the judgment dt. 18.9.2023 of the learned Single Judge
passed in W.P.(S) No. 5151 of 2016.
2) In the application filed seeking condonation of delay, it is
contended that after the judgment was pronounced on 18.9.2023, it was
2025:JHHC:12122-DB
uploaded on the website of the High Court, and thereafter also
communicated to the Higher and Technical Education Department of the
Government of Jharkhand by the concerned Law Officer on 28.11.2023.
3) It is stated that the file was forwarded to the Deputy Director of the
Department on 18.12.2023 for filing of Letters Patent Appeal for
forwarding the same to the Advocate General. It is stated that the Deputy
Director then forwarded to the Under Secretary and it was also placed
before the retainer for preparing grounds of appeal on 11.1.2024; then the
Deputy Director forwarded the file to the Under Secretary on the same
day; retainer of the Department prepared the grounds of Appeal and again
forwarded it to the Deputy Director on 1.2.2024 for forwarding it to the
Advocate General; file was put before the Advocate General on 5.2.2024
and he gave an opinion through one of his Law Officers on 9.2.2024 to
file the appeal.
4) It is stated that thereafter file was again forwarded to the Deputy
Director for approval of the statement of facts prepared by the retainer and
also to authorize him to file the Letters Patent Appeal. After getting
approval, the draft Letters Patent Appeal was prepared by the concerned
Law Officer and it was again forwarded to the Deputy Director on
4.7.2024. On 4.7.2024, it was put up before the Director for approval of
the draft and then the appeal came to be filed on 2.8.2024.
5) It is stated that thus the delay of 289 days occurred in filing the
Letters Patent Appeal and delay is not intentional or deliberate and was
caused due to the circumstances beyond the control of the appellant.
6) Counsel for the applicants reiterated the said submissions.
2025:JHHC:12122-DB
7) Admittedly the judgment of the learned Single Judge was
pronounced in W.P.(S) No. 5151 of 2016 on 18.9.2023. The certified
copy of the said judgment was applied by the applicant on 5.7.2024, 10
months after the judgment was pronounced by the learned Single Judge, as
can be seen from the certified copy filed along with the Letters Patent
Appeal. No reason is assigned by the applicant why such a long delay
occurred in applying for the certified copy of the impugned judgment.
8) Also why the judgment pronounced on 18.9.2023 and put up on the
website of the High Court was not communicated to the Department by
the concerned Law Officer till 28.11.2023 i.e for two and half months is
not explained. Moreover, after the opinion was given by the office of the
Advocate General on 9.2.2024 nothing was done till 4.7.2024 and only
thereafter steps were taken to file the appeal on 2.8.2024 with a delay of
289 days.
9) At every stage, there has been delay on the part of the applicants for
taking steps to file the Letters Patent Appeal though the applicants were
fully aware that the time for filing a Letters Patent Appeal is only 30 days
from the date of communication of the judgment of the learned Single
Judge.
10) 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
(2012) 3 SCC 563
2025:JHHC:12122-DB
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.
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
2025:JHHC:12122-DB
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)
11) In Union of India & Anr. Vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D)
through his LR2, 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
2024 INSC 262: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 489
2025:JHHC:12122-DB
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 explanation offered by the party seeking
condonation. It declared that delay should not be excused as a matter of
generosity.
12) This was also reiterated in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.
Ramkumar Choudhary3.
13) For the reasons aforesaid, we are satisfied that the appellants
have not taken steps for filing the appeal expeditiously and acted in a
negligent manner. We are satisfied that no sufficient cause has been shown
by them for condoning the delay of 289 days in filing the appeal.
14) Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
15) Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal is also dismissed.
16) All pending applications shall stand closed.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
N.A.F.R.
Sharda/-
Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 48636 of 2024 dt. 29.11.2024
