Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... vs Sheshnath Singh on 29 January, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 579 of 2024
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of
Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Co-operative (Co-operative
Division), Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa,
District Ranchi
2. The Registrar, Co-operative Department (Co-operative Division),
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District
Ranchi
3. The Joint Registrar, Co-operative Department (Co-operative
Division), Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa,
District Ranchi
4. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry
and Co-operative (Co-operative Division), Government of Jharkhand,
Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi
5. The District Co-operative Officer, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District
Dhanbad.
...... Respondents/Appellants
Versus
Sheshnath Singh, son of Late Mahendra Singh, resident of Bishrampur
Block, P.O. & P.S. Bishrampur, District Palamu, Jharkhand
...... Petitioner/Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-------
For the Appellants: Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, A.C. to AAG-III
---------
Reserved on: 16.01.2025 Pronounced on: 29 . 1 .2025
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. (Oral)
I.A. No. 12203 of 2024 in L.P.A. No. 579 of 2024
1. This application is filed by the applicants under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 to condone delay of 234 days in filing the appeal
-1 of 6-
challenging judgment dt. 29.01.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 7495 of 2016
by the learned Single Judge.
2. In the application filed seeking condonation of delay, it is
contended that the delay was caused due to procedural formalities and
that there was no willful omission on the part of the applicants.
3. It is further contended that after the judgment was pronounced it
was informed to the concerned department and the department directed
the concerned officials to regularly check the Vidhi Portal for the copy of
the judgment dt. 29.01.2024. It is stated that as per internal
communication, the judgment was not available on the Vidhi Portal till
22.02.2024 and the concerned officials were directed to update on the
Vidhi Portal of the said judgment and put up the file for needful.
4. We are informed that the Vidhi Portal is an in-house portal of the
State Government for uploading the judgments relating to the
Government.
5. When the High Court website would have shown the judgment
pronounced by the learned Single Judge, it was the duty of the applicants
to download the judgment from the High Court website and then take
steps to file the appeal instead of searching for it on the Vidhi Portal
where it was not uploaded probably because of negligence of the persons
who were to upload the same on the said Portal.
6. If the judgment was not available on the Vidhi Portal till
22.02.2024 the applicants could have used the downloaded copy of the
judgment and taken steps to file the appeal, but after consultation at
several levels the appeal was admittedly filed on 17.09.2024.
-2 of 6-
7. No sense of urgency was shown by the official of the applicants at
any point of time and they were negligent in taking steps to file an appeal
within the time permitted by law.
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
evinced diligence in prosecuting the matter to this Court by taking
appropriate steps.
1 (2012) 3 SCC 563
-3 of 6-
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
2 (2022) 3 SCC 159
3 (2022) 2 SCC 327
4 (2021) 11 SCC 557
-4 of 6-
&Others vs. 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
6 (2022) 9 SCC 266
7 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. 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 contend that they can take their own sweet time and file
the appeal as and when it suits them.
14. 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
234 days in filing the appeal.
15. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Consequently, the
Letters Patent Appeal is also dismissed.
16. 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-
