Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand vs Shivendra Kumar Sinha on 8 July, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:18227-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
I.A. No. 4083 of 2025
In/And
L.P.A. No. 227 of 2025
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa
Department, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa (Project Building), District-Ranchi
3. The Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry & Co-operative
Department (Agriculture Division), P.O. & P.S. Doranda, (Nepal
House), District Ranchi
4. The Joint Secretary, Department of Agriculture & Sugarcane
Development, Ranchi .. ... ... Appellants
Versus
1. Shivendra Kumar Sinha, aged about 61 years, son of Sri
Kamleshwar Prasad, Resident of Sree Sai Residency, Flat No.- H
808, Block-A, Chitragupta Nagar, Baragain, Bariatu Ranchi, P.O. &
P.S.- Bariatu, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand
2. The Accountant General (A & E) A.G. Office, Doranda, P.O. &
P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi
3. The Provident Fund Officer, P.O.- Karam Toli, P.S.-Sadar, District-
Ranchi ... ... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---------
For the Appellants: Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, AC to GA-V
For the Respondents: Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, Advocate
Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate
--------
Reserved on: 03.07.2025 Pronounced on: 08 / 07 /2025
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.(Oral)
1) The instant interlocutory application is filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 by the applicants to condone the delay of 240
days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal, challenging the judgment dt.
01.07.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 3939 of 2021.
2025:JHHC:18227-DB
2) In the application filed seeking condonation of delay, it is stated that the
applicants came to know about the said judgment only on 19.09.2024
and then on 24.09.2024 a decision was taken to file Letters Patent
Appeal against the said judgment
3) On 12.12.2024 it was decided to take the opinion from the office of the
Advocate General and opinion was received on 07.01.2025 and
thereafter memo of grounds and statement of facts was prepared and the
Letters Patent Appeal was filed on 28.3.2025
4) Though the judgment was pronounced in the presence of the counsel for
the applicants on 01.07.2024 by the learned Single Judge, application
for issuance of certified copy was only made on 28.3.2025 and there is
no explanation for not applying for the same immediately after the
judgment was pronounced
5) Moreover, we failed to understand how the applicants can take a plea
that they came to know about the judgment of the learned Single Judge
only on 19.9.2024 when the judgment was pronounced in the presence
of their counsel on 01.07.2024.
6) Also, if the decision to file the LPA was taken 24.09.2024 why they
waited till 12. 12. 2024 to get the opinion of the Advocate General is
perplexing.
7) It appears that at every stage a leisurely approach was adopted in spite
of the applicants being fully aware that the time for filing the LPA is
only 30 days.
2025:JHHC:18227-DB
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.
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
(2012) 3 SCC 563
2025:JHHC:18227-DB
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. Vishnu Aroma Pouching Private Limited and another5, and
State of Uttar Pradesh & Others vs. Sabha Narain & others6.
(2022) 3 SCC 159
(2022) 2 SCC 327
(2021) 11 SCC 557
(2022) 9 SCC 263
(2022) 9 SCC 266
2025:JHHC:18227-DB
11) In Union of India & Anr. Vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D)
through his LR 7, 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.
12) This was also reiterated in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramkumar
Choudhary8.
2024 INSC 262: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 489
Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 48636 of 2024 dt. 29.11.2024
2025:JHHC:18227-DB
13) In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the
applicants have been negligent in taking steps to file the Letters Patent
Appeal and they have not shown sufficient cause for condoning the said
period of delay.
14) Therefore, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.
Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal is also dismissed.
15) All pending applications shall stand closed.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
A.F.R.
Sharda/-
c.p.02
