Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand; vs M/S Jharkhand Road Projects ... on 25 April, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:12309-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 45 of 2025
1. The State of Jharkhand;
2. Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of
Jharkhand, Mantralaya, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District
Ranchi - 834004 (Jharkhand);
3. Joint Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of
Jharkhand, Mantralaya, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District
Ranchi - 834004 (Jharkhand); ... ... Appellants
Versus
1. M/s Jharkhand Road Projects Implementation Company Limited
(acting through its Director, Shri Bijay Kant Jha Vijay), a company
incorporated under the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956, having its
registered office situated 443/A, Road No. 5, Ashok Nagar, P.O. Ashok
Nagar, P.S. Argora, District Ranchi - 834002 (Jharkhand), through its
director Bijay Kant Jha Vijay, S/o-Late Sadanand Jha, aged about 49
years, resident of Flat No. 804, Ekalavya Tower, Argora Kathal More
Road, Ranchi.
2. M/s Jharkhand Accelerated Road Development Company Limited
(acting through its managing Director), a company incorporated under
the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956, and having its registered office
situated 443/A, Road No. 5, Ashok Nagar, P.O. Ashok Nagar & P.S.
Argora, District Ranchi - 834002 (Jharkhand); ... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Appellants : Mr. Ashok Kr. Yadav, Sr.S.C.I.
---------
C.A.V. On: 19.03.2025 Pronounced On: 25.04.2025
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.(Oral)
I.A. No. 13308 of 2025 in/and L.P.A. No. 45 of 2025
This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,
1963 to condone delay of 214 days in filing the Appeal challenging the
judgment dt. 09.04.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C)
No.719 of 2018.
2. In the application filed seeking condonation of delay, it is
stated that the impugned judgment was pronounced on 09.04.2024 and
after coming to know of the same, the file was put up before the official
-1 of 9-
2025:JHHC:12309-DB
of the applicants, Road Construction Department of the Government of
Jharkhand for taking further steps in the matter.
3. It is also stated that through a memo dt. 12.06.2024, the
Assistant Registrar of the High Court of Jharkhand had sent a letter to
the applicants regarding the final outcome of the writ petition and that a
caveat was also filed by the respondent on 22.06.2024 before this
Court.
4. It is stated that on 16.07.2024, the applicants forwarded the
file to the concerned authorities with a noting that opinion of Law
Department may be obtained; and that on 19.07.2024, the Secretary,
(Management Cell) opined that a Letters Patent Appeal is to be filed in
this Court and the opinion of the Law Department is necessary.
5. It is stated that on 22nd July, 2024, the Additional Secretary
endorsed the file to the Principal Secretary with a noting that the file
may be endorsed to the Law Department for his opinion regarding filing
of the Appeal.
6. Thereafter, on 25.07.2024, the Principal Secretary endorsed
the file to the Law Department, that the Principal Secretary, Law on
26.07.2024 endorsed the file to the office of the Advocate General and
on 08.08.2024, Advocate General opined that a Letters Patent Appeal
be preferred.
7. It is stated that after the opinion was given by the Advocate
General, file was endorsed to the Executive Engineer, Road
Construction, Ramgarh, on 21.08.2024 for taking up further action;
draft of the Letters Patent Appeal with file was put up before the
-2 of 9-
2025:JHHC:12309-DB
concerned authority on 21.08.2024 for further approval; on 23.08.2024,
the file was endorsed to the Chief Engineer for further action of filing
the Letters Patent Appeal; on 05.11.2024, statement of facts was sent
before the concerned authority for filing the Letters Patent Appeal; on
06.11.2024, file was put up before the concerned authority for approval
on the statement of facts and further to authorize the Executive
Engineer for filing the LPA.
8. According to the applicants, the file was forwarded to the
concerned authority on 11.11.2024 with a noting that the approval of
the Principal Secretary to be obtained. It was then put up before the
Principal Secretary for approval on 11.11.2024 and after such approval
was granted, the appeal was filed on 09.12.2024.
9. It is stated that the delay in filing the appeal was not
intentional or deliberate but was caused due to circumstances beyond
the control of the applicants.
10. Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned Sr.S.C. I appearing for the
applicants has also cited the following judgments:-
1. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaan1
2.Ram Nath Sao Alias Ram Nath Sahu and Others v. Gobardhan
Sao and Ors2
3. State of M. P. and another v. Pradeep Kumar and another3
4. N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy4
(2008) 14 SCC 582
(2002) 3 SCC 195
(2000) 7 SCC 372
(1998) 7 SCC 123
-3 of 9-
2025:JHHC:12309-DB
5. State of U.P. and others v. Harish Chandra and others5
6. State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and others6
7. G. Ramegowda, Major and others v. Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Bangalore7
8. Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst. Katiji
and Others8
11. He vehemently contended that the matter relates to a huge sum
of Rs.106 crores to be paid to the respondents, that there is merit in the
case of the applicants and therefore, the delay in filing the LPA ought to
be overlooked and it should be condoned.
12. It is seen from the facts narrated in the application seeking
condonation of delay that though the judgment of the learned Single
Judge was pronounced on 9th April, 2024 in W.P. (C) No.719 of 2018,
the appeal was filed only on 09.12.2024.
13. During the intervening period, the applicants were sending the
file from one officer to another though they were fully aware that the
time for filing the Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of the
learned Single Judge is only 30 days.
14. In this era of instantaneous communication, it is unbelievable
that this archaic method of sending the file from table to table is still
being followed in the State of Jharkhand.
(1996) 9 SCC 309
(1996) 3 SCC 132
(1988) 2 SCC 142
(1987) 2 SCC 107
-4 of 9-
2025:JHHC:12309-DB
15. We are surprised that the appeal was filed initially by the
applicants beyond the period of limitation without even filing an
application for condonation of delay, though the law officers of the
Government would be fully aware that such an application is warranted,
if the appeal is not filed within time.
16. Also the reading of the application for condonation of delay
indicates that at every stage, the respondents had not taken steps to file
the appeal with the requisite expedition though they are fully aware that
the time for filing an appeal is only 30 days. The practice of the file
being moved from table to table and from officer to officer has been
criticised by the Supreme Court in several decisions.
17. In Postmaster General and others Vs. Living Media India
Limited and another9, 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.
(2012) 3 SCC 563
-5 of 9-
2025:JHHC:12309-DB
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." (emphasis supplied)
18. These observations equally apply to the instant case where the
applicants have acted in a similar manner as in the said case.
-6 of 9-
2025:JHHC:12309-DB
19. 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.10, Pr. Commissioner Central
Excise Delhi-1 vs. Design Dialogues India Pvt. Ltd.11, Union of India
vs. Central Tibetan Schools Administration & Others12, Union of
India &Others vs. Vishnu Aroma Pouching Private Limited and
another13, and State of Uttar Pradesh & Others vs. Sabha Narain &
others14.
20. In Union of India & Anr. Vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy
(D) through his LR15, 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
(2022) 3 SCC 159
(2022) 2 SCC 327
(2021) 11 SCC 557
(2022) 9 SCC 263
(2022) 9 SCC 266
2024 INSC 262: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 489
-7 of 9-
2025:JHHC:12309-DB
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.
21. By allowing multiple people to deal with the question as to
whether or not the judgment of the learned Single Judge is to be
challenged, and without speeding up the process within the Department,
it is not open to the applicants to file the appeal with inordinate delay
and seek condonation of the same.
22. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and
the above decisions of the Supreme Court, we are satisfied that
sufficient cause has not been shown by the applicants for condonation
of delay of 214 days in filing the appeal.
23. We may also point out that even the application for issuance of
certified copy of the judgment pronounced by the learned Single Judge
on 09.04.2024 was made on 26.11.2024 as can be seen from the
certified copy of the impugned judgment filed along with the appeal.
There is no explanation offered for this.
24. As regards the plea of the applicants that they had a very good
case on merits, we may point out that before the learned Single Judge in
paragraph 4, the applicants( who were respondents in the writ petition)
did not dispute the claim of the respondents/Writ petitioners as regards
the payment to the latter of Rs.1,06,47,75,028/- and so the learned
-8 of 9-
2025:JHHC:12309-DB
Single Judge directed payment of the same to the respondents within
eight weeks and also directed the applicants to consider payment of
interest in accordance with law by a speaking order.
25. The plea of the applicants that they had an excellent case on
merits therefore is a false plea, since they had conceded before the
learned Single Judge that they had owed the money to the respondents.
26. As regards the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the
applicants is concerned, in the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court
in Post Master General cited (9 Supra), the judgments cited at serial
nos. 5 to 8 in para 10 supra by the applicants were considered; and
notwithstanding the same, the Supreme Court held that Departments of
the Government cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions,
where a liberal interpretation was done by the Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court even clarified in PostMaster General (9 Supra) also
that if there is no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona
fides, sometimes a liberal view can also be taken to advance substantial
justice but in the instant case, there has been gross negligence/deliberate
inaction on the part of the applicants.
27. Therefore, I.A. No. 13308 of 2024 is dismissed. Consequently,
the Letters Patent Appeal is also dismissed.
28. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
APK
-9 of 9-
