Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... vs Vayam Technologies Limited on 11 February, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 337 of 2019
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Urban
Development & Housing Department, Project Building, P.O. & P.S.
Dhurwa, District-Ranchi
2. The Director, State Urban Development Agency, 4 th Floor, Project
Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi
3. The Director, Municipal Administration, Urban Development &
Housing Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, 3rd Floor, Project Building,
P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi.. ... ... Appellants
Versus
Vayam Technologies Limited, a company registered under the
Companies Act, 1956 and having its office at "Thapar House" 124
Janpath, P.O., P.S. & District- New Delhi-110001, through its Vice
President and authorized representative namely Rajesh Gupta, Son of
Late Anand Prakash Gupta, aged about 44 years, resident of 8A/77,
Ground Floor, WEA, P.O. & P.S.- Karol Bagh, District New Delhi
110005 ... ... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Appellants : Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. S.C. II
For the Respondent: Ms. Aanya Advocate
Mr. Amitabh, Advocate
--------
Reserved on: 23.01.2025 Pronounced on: 11 /02/2025
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.(Oral)
Re: I.A. No. 4288 of 2019 in LPA No. 337 of 2019
1) This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
by the applicants to condone the delay of 276 days in filing this appeal,
challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
2) In the application filing seeking condonation of delay, it is stated
that the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 1036 of 2018
was passed on 28.6.2018, that the information about the judgment was
received in the applicants' department on 12.7.2018, and the concerned
Assistant made a note of it and placed the concerned file before the 2 nd
appellant. It is stated that the copy of the impugned judgment was not
available with the department and the 2nd appellant then asked the Section
Officer on 20.7.2018 to obtain the copy.
3) It is stated that in the meantime, the judgment was sent to the
applicants' department on 10.9.2018 by the High Court, and after receiving
it, the file was placed before the Assistant Section Officer on 12.9.2018 in
order that it be placed before the proper authority for taking appropriate
decision.
4) It is stated that the file was then sent to the Deputy Director of the
department on 12.9.2018 and he placed it before the Director on 14.9.2018.
The file was then placed before the 1st appellant on 3.10.2018 and he then
requested the Law department of the State Government to give opinion on
12.10.2018.
5) It is stated that the file then sent to the Law department on
22.10.2018. Ultimately the file was placed before the Advocate General on
5.11.2018 and he endorsed it to his Associate Counsel for drafting the
appeal and after collecting some relevant documents and material in
January, 2019, the appeal was filed on 30.4.2019.
6) It is stated that the delay in filing of the appeal was on account of
need to comply with procedural formalities and the same may be condoned.
7) From the facts narrated above, it is clear that though the impugned
judgment was pronounced on 28.6.2018 , application for certified copy was
not made and the processing of the file actually commenced after the copy
of the judgment sent by the High Court, was received on 10.9.2018 i.e. more
than 2 and 1/ 2 months later.
8) Even, thereafter, the file was being sent from table to table and
from officer to officer and though the Advocate General office received it
on 5.11.2018, the appeal came to be filed only on 30.4.2019, five months
later.
9) Thus, at every stage, there was a delay in taking steps to file the
appeal.
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 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
(2012) 3 SCC 563
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)
11) These observations equally apply to the instant case where the
applicants have acted in a similar manner as in the said case.
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 &
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
(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
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.
14) This was also reiterated in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.
Ramkumar Choudhary8.
15) 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 appellants to act as if they can take their own sweet
time and file the appeal as and when it suits them.
16) 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
276 days in filing the appeal.
17) Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Consequently, the
Letters Patent Appeal is also dismissed.
18) Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
N.A.F.R.
Sharda/-
8 Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 48636 of 2024 dt. 29.11.2024
