I.A. No.4985 of 2025:
2. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that on
05.10.2024 it came to the knowledge of the concerned
department about passing of the impugned judgment dated
12.08.2024 and thereafter on 02.12.2024, a decision was taken
by the appellant-department to file Letters Patent Appeal against
the impugned judgment. On 04.12.2024, the file was sent to the
office of the learned Advocate General for taking opinion which
was received on 13.12.2024.
2025:JHHC:18995-DB
3. It is also submitted that on 18.12.2024, the Department started
taking steps for getting the memo of appeal including the grounds
drafted which was prepared on 28.01.2025 and subsequently on
31.01.2025 the same was sent for approval of the Secretary of
the Department (appellant no.2 herein) who granted approval on
04.02.2025.
4. It is further submitted that on 07.02.2025, the grounds for filing
the Letters Patent Appeal were communicated to the office of the
concerned State counsel who finally completed the drafting
on 30.02.2025.
5. It is also submitted that a telephonic communication with the
department was established for providing photo copy of the
counter affidavit filed in the writ petition which was received in
the office of the concerned State counsel on 20.03.2025 and
thereafter the present Letters Patent Appeal was filed
on 17.04.2025.
6. It is further submitted that any delay which has occurred in filing
of the instant Letters Patent Appeal is not deliberate
and intentional. The appeal has the merit which contains
good grounds for assailing the impugned judgment. Therefore,
the delay of 218 days occurred in filing of appeal may be
condoned.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the
materials placed on record.
8. On bare perusal of the record of the case, it appears that the
judgment of the learned Single Judge was pronounced on
2025:JHHC:18995-DB
12.08.2024 and the counsel of the appellants was present on the
said date. As such, the appellants were supposed to have the
knowledge of the said judgment. The appellants were also well
aware of the legal position that a Letters Patent Appeal is to be
filed within 30 days from passing of the judgment by the learned
Single Judge, however they have filed the instant Letters Patent
Appeal on 17.04.2025 after a delay of 218 days. Even the
application for obtaining certified copy of the impugned judgment
dated 12.08.2024 was filed on 12.06.2025 i.e., after ten months.
This clearly suggests that the appellants were quite casual and
lethargic in filing the instant appeal.
9. In the case of Postmaster General and others Vs. Living
Media India Limited and another reported in (2012) 3
SCC 563, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"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. 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.
2025:JHHC:18995-DB
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."
10. In the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. Jahangir Byramji
Jeejeebhoy (D) through his LR reported in 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 489, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"25. It hardly matters whether a litigant is a private party
or a State or Union of India when it comes to condoning the
gross delay of more than 12 years. If the litigant chooses to
approach the court long after the lapse of the time
prescribed under the relevant provisions of the law, then he
cannot turn around and say that no prejudice would be
caused to either side by the delay being condoned. This
litigation between the parties started sometime in 1981.
We are in 2024. Almost 43 years have elapsed. However, till
date the respondent has not been able to reap the fruits of
his decree. It would be a mockery of justice if we condone
the delay of 12 years and 158 days and once again ask the
respondent to undergo the rigmarole of the legal
proceedings.
26. The length of the 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 own
inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-
deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he
cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice
deserves to be preferred as against the technical
considerations. While considering the plea for condonation
of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the
main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain
the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party
2025:JHHC:18995-DB
seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause
assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side
is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the
merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay.
27. We are of the view that the question of limitation is not
merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are
based on the principles of sound public policy and principles
of equity. We should not keep the 'Sword of Damocles'
hanging over the head of the respondent for indefinite
period of time to be determined at the whims and fancies of
the appellants.
35. In a plethora of decisions of this Court, it has been said
that delay should not be excused as a matter of generosity.
Rendering substantial justice is not to cause prejudice to
the opposite party. The appellants have failed to prove that
they were reasonably diligent in prosecuting the matter and
this vital test for condoning the delay is not satisfied in this
case."
11. The length of delay is a relevant consideration for condonation of
delay in filing of appeal. If it is found that the delay in filing appeal
has occasioned due to negligence and casual attitude of the party
claiming condonation of delay, the same may not be condoned
on the ground of doing substantial justice. It is trite law that a
government department cannot claim a separate period of
limitation. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody,
including the government. The claim for condonation of delay 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.
12. Thus, we are not inclined to condone an inordinate delay of 218
days in filing of the present appeal in view of the fact that the
appellants have been lethargic and casual in taking steps for filing
the same and have not shown sufficient cause for condoning the
said delay.
2025:JHHC:18995-DB
13. For the reasons as aforesaid, the application (I.A. No.4985 of
2025) seeking condonation of delay in filing the instant appeal is
dismissed.
L.P.A. No.317 of 2025:
14. Consequently, the present Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.
15. Other pending I.As., if any, are also dismissed.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Sanjay/
