Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand vs Bipin Salil Ekka on 15 July, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:19171-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
I.A. No. 4552 of 2025
In / And
L.P.A. No. 300 of 2025
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Government of
Jharkhand, at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa,
District - Ranchi.
3. The Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, P.O. &
P.S. Ranchi, District - Ranchi.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Gumla, P.O. & P.S.- Gumla, District -
Gumla.
5. The Sub-Divisional officer, Gumla, P.O. & P.S.- Gumla, District-
Gumla.
6. The Block Development Officer, Gumla, P.O. & P.S.- Gumla,
District Gumla.
... Respondents/Appellants
Versus
Bipin Salil Ekka, Son of Late Isdor Ekka, resident of Mohalla-
Dipnagar, Sisay Road, Gumla, P.O. & P.S. and District - Gumla.
... Writ Petitioner/Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---------
For the Appellants: Mr. Neil Abhijit Toppo, A.C. to G.A.-V
---------
Reserved on: 08.07.2025 Pronounced on: 15/07/2025
Per M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.
1. This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,
1963 by the applicants to condone the delay of 295 days in filing the
Letters Patent Appeal challenging the judgment dt. 17.05.2024 of the
learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 6319 of 2015.
2. In the application seeking condonation of delay, it is stated that
the applicants came to know about the said judgment of the learned
Single Judge on 12.07.2024, that a decision was taken by the applicants
2025:JHHC:19171-DB
to file LPA against the said judgment on the same day, and they took
steps for preparing the grounds for filing the LPA.
3. It is then stated that on 13.07.2024 approval from the Secretary
of the applicants' Department was taken on the grounds for filing LPA;
on 25.07.2024 a decision was taken to obtain opinion from the office of
the Advocate General, Jharkhand regarding the filing of appeal; such
legal opinion was provided on 13.01.2025; and the original file was
thereafter returned to the applicants' Department.
4. It is stated that the original file was then sent to the Law Officer
on 18.01.2025 for doing the needful, that he received the file on
21.01.2025 and the LPA was filed on 09.04.2025.
5. It is stated that the delay in filing the LPA was not deliberate or
intentional, that there are merits in the appeal and, therefore, the delay
in filing the appeal has to be condoned.
6. From the records filed along with the application for condonation
of delay which include certified copy of the judgment of the learned
Single Judge, it is clear that though the judgment of the learned Single
was pronounced on 17.05.2024, application for issuance of certified
copy was made on 21.01.2025, i.e., 7½ months after the pronouncement
of the judgment. No reason has been assigned why the applicants could
not apply for even certified copy of the impugned judgment
immediately after it was pronounced.
7. Admittedly, the judgment was pronounced in the presence of the
counsel for the applicants. Therefore, they were aware about the
judgment even on 17.05.2024, and they cannot take the plea that they
came to know about it on 12.07.2024, two months later.
2025:JHHC:19171-DB
8. Since, according to the applicant, decision to file LPA was
already taken on 12.07.2024 itself, we fail to understand why they had
to wait for the opinion of the Advocate General from 25.07.2024 to
13.01.2025, and even after the said opinion was provided on
13.01.2025, the LPA came to be filed three months later on 09.04.2025.
9. Thus, at every stage the applicants have acted in a lethargic
manner in taking steps to file LPA, though they are fully aware that the
period of limitation for filing the LPA is only 30 days from the date of
pronouncement of the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
10. In Postmaster General and others v. 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-incharge has filed any explanation for not
(2012) 3 SCC 563
2025:JHHC:19171-DB
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 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)
2025:JHHC:19171-DB
11. The said judgment has been followed by the Supreme Court in
several cases such as Commissioner of Customs Chennai v. M/s
Volex Interconnect (India) Pvt. Ltd.2, Pr. Commissioner Central
Excise Delhi-1 v. Design Dialogues India Pvt. Ltd.3, Union of India
v. Central Tibetan Schools Administration & Others4, Union of
India & Others v. Vishnu Aroma Pouching Private Limited and
another5, and State of Uttar Pradesh & Others v. Sabha Narain &
others6.
12. In Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D)
through his legal heir7, the Supreme Court held that it is not
permissible to 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
(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
2025:JHHC:19171-DB
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.
13. This was also reiterated in State of Madhya Pradesh v.
Ramkumar Choudhary8.
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
295 days in filing the appeal.
15. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.
Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal is also dismissed.
16. All pending applications shall stand closed.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Manoj/-
Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 48636 of 2024 dt.29.11.2024
