Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand vs Raghwendra Mishra on 29 January, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 600 of 2024
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at
Project Building, PO + PS- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. The Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasaha
Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project
Building, PO+PS- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. The Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Forest Environment and Climate
Change Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at
Nepal House, PO+PS- Doranda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
5. The Principal Chief Conservator office Forest, Head of Forest Force,
Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Van Bhawan, PO+PS-
Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
6. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Bio Diversity Conservation
Chief Wild Life Warden, Government of Jharkhand, having its office
at Van Bhawan, PO+PS- Doranda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
7. The Chief Conservator of Forest, Chief Wild and Bio Diversity
Conservation, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Van
Bhawan, PO+PS- Doranda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand
8. The Special Secretary, Forest, Environment and Climate Change
Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Nepal
Rouse, PO+PS-Doranda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand
...... Appellants/Respondents
Versus
Raghwendra Mishra, aged about 66 years, son of Late Gopi kant Mishra,
resident of Amarnth Garden, Vikash Nagar, Flat no.-B/302, Latma Road,
Singh More, Ranchi, P.O. Hatia, P.S.- Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi,
Jharkhand ..... Petitioner/Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-------
For the Appellants: Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. S.C.-II
---------
-1 of 6-
Reserved on:16.01.2025 Pronounced on: 29 . 1 .2025
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.(Oral)
I.A. No. 10011 of 2024 in L.P.A. No. 600 of 2024
1. This application is filed by the applicants under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 to condone delay of 287 days in filing this L.P.A
challenging judgment dt. 07.11.2023 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5014 of 2021
by the learned Single Judge.
2. In the application seeking condonation of delay, it is stated that the
Chief Conservator of Forest informed the D.F.O., Ranchi about the order
dated 07.11.2023 and asked him to prepare the grounds of appeal on
25.01.2024.
3. This delay in taking steps to file the appeal between the date of
pronouncement of the order i.e., 07.11.2023 to 25.01.2024 more than two
and half months is not explained by the applicants.
4. It is further stated in the application that the grounds of appeal were
prepared and was placed before the competent authority on 10.04.2024.
5. Why it took two and half months for preparing the grounds of
appeal and placing it before the competent authority is also not explained.
It is stated that due to procedural technicalities and since the applicants
are government functionaries having several layers of decision making,
delay occurred in filing the appeal.
6. It is to be noted that the appeal in fact was filed on 11.09.2024
though according to the applicants the grounds of appeal were prepared
on 10.04.2024 itself. Even this delay is unexplained.
-2 of 6-
7. The above narration of facts indicates that at every stage the
respondents acted with negligence in spite of fact that they are aware that
the time for filing the Letters Patent Appeal was only 30 days from the
date of the order.
8. 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
1 (2012) 3 SCC 563
-3 of 6-
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)
9. These observations equally apply to the instant case where the
applicants have acted in a similar manner as in the said case.
10. 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.
2 (2022) 3 SCC 159
(2022) 2 SCC 327
(2021) 11 SCC 557
-4 of 6-
Vishnu Aroma Pouching Private Limited and another5, and State of
Uttar Pradesh & Others vs. Sabha Narain & others6.
11. 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 explanation offered by the party seeking
condonation. It declared that delay should not be excused as a matter of
generosity.
5 (2022) 9 SCC 263
(2022) 9 SCC 266
2024 INSC 262: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 489
-5 of 6-
12. This was also reiterated in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.
Ramkumar Choudhary8.
13. 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 inordinate
period of delay of 287 days in filing the appeal.
14. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Consequently, the
Letters Patent Appeal is also dismissed.
15. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
VK
8 Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 48636 of 2024 dt. 29.11.2024
-6 of 6-
