Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand vs Srinivas Rao on 15 July, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:19138-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
I.A. No. 4488 of 2025
In/And
L.P.A No. 206 of 2025
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand, having his office at
Police Headquarter, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi.
3. The Police Inspector General (Human Rights), having his office at
Police Headquarter, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi.
4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police
(JAP), having his office at Raja-Rani Kothi, P.Ο. & P.S. Doranda,
District Ranchi.
5. The Senior Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. Sakshi Thana, District East Singhbhum.
6. The Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh, P.O. Hazaribagh, P.S.
Sadar, District Hazaribagh.
7. The Superintendent of Police, Chatra, P.O. Chatra, P.S. Sadar,
District Chatra.
8. The Superintendent of Police, Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa,
District West Singhbhum.
9. The Superintendent of Police, Koderma, P.O. & P.S. Koderma,
District Koderma.
10. The Superintendent of Police, Saraikella-Kharsawan, P.O. & P.S.
Saraikella-Kharsawan, District Saraikella-Kharsawan.
11. The Superintendent of Police, Gumla, Ρ.Ο. & P.S. Gumla, District
Gumla.
12. The Superintendent of Police, Lohardaga, P.O. Lohardaga, P.S.
Town Thana Lohardaga, District Lohardaga.
13. The Commandant of IRB-1, P.O. Davalbardi, P.S. Narayanpur,
District Jamtara.
14. The Commandant of JAP-9, P.O. & P.S. Jilwabarri, District
Sahibganj.
15. The Commandant of JAP-2, P.O. & P.S. Tatisilway, District
Ranchi.
16. The Commandant of JAP-4, P.O. Sector 12/A, P.S. Sector 12
Thana, District Bokaro.
...... Appellants/Respondents
Versus
1. Srinivas Rao, Son of Sri C. Rao, resident of At Sakshi Thana
Campus, 48/A/3, P.O. & P.S. Sakshi, District East Singhbhum, PIN-
831001, Jharkhand.
-1 of 9-
2025:JHHC:19138-DB
2. Lotla Satyam, Son of Sri L. Seetha Rao, Resident of House
no.1077, Kumharpara, P.O. & P.S. Sonari, District East Singhbhum, PIN-
831011, Jharkhand.
3. Praveen Kumar, Son of Late Sri Matuk Dhari Singh, Resident of
Gram-Saram, P.O. & P.S. Ichak, District Hazaribagh, PIN-825402,
Jharkhand.
4. Sunil Kumar, Son of Sri Moti Ram, Resident of 84, T.R. Type,
Kundli Road, P.O. & P.S. Kadma, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum,
PIN-831005, Jharkhand.
5. Md. Shahid, Son of Sri Ali Jan, resident of House no.50, Road
no.1, K.G.N. Colony, Old Purulia Road, Zakhirnagar, P.O. & P.S. Azad
Nagar, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, PIN-832110, Jharkhand.
6. Jitendra Singh, Son of Sri Baldev Singh, Resident of Gram Deo
Nagar, Gandhi Marg, House no.14, P.O. Sakshi, P.S. Sitaramdera,
District East Singhbhum, PIN- 831001, Jharkhand.
7. Sarfaraz Ahmad, Son of Sri Gulzar Ahmad, Resident of B.H. Area,
Road no.2, Ρ.Ο. & P.S. Kadma, District East Singhbhum, PIN-831005,
Jharkhand.
8. Lakhwinder Singh, Son of Sri Baldev Singh, Resident of 4/29,
Golmuri Hindu Basti, P.O. & P.S. Golmuri, District East Singhbhum,
PIN-831003, Jharkhand.
9. Hemant Kumar Sahu, Son of Sri Ishwar Lal Sahu, Gram Sonari,
Gudri Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Sonari, District East Singhbhum, PIN-831011,
Jharkhand.
10. Tarun Kumar Pandey, Son of Sri Balsudha Pandey, Resident of
Village Haripur, P.O. Nishchalganj, P.S. Parawalpur, District Nalanda,
PIN-801301, Bihar.
11. Lalu Kumar Sharma, Son of Sri Adalati Sharma, Resident of House
no.58 D, Kadma, Near Bhatia Basti Shivpath, P.O. & P.S. Kadma,
District East Singhbhum, PIN-831005, Jharkhand.
12. Rakesh Kumar Pandey, Son of Sri Shivejee Pandey, Resident of
Gram- Barka Rajpur, P.O. Barka Rajpur, P.S. Simri, District Buxer, PIN
802113, Bihar.
13. Dildar Singh, Son of Sri Pramjeet Singh, Resident of Gram Tulia
Dungri, P.O. & P.S. Golmuri, District East Singhbhum, PIN- 831003,
Jharkhand.
14. Amit Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Ashok Singh, Resident of Gram
East Plant Basti, Burmamines, P.O. & P.S. Burmamines, District East
Singhbhum, PIN-831007, Jharkhand.
15. Bir Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Prahlad Singh, Resident of Quarter
no.2-051, Street- S, Sector 2D, P.O. Sector- 2, P.S. City Police Station,
District Bokaro Steel City, PIN-827001, Jharkhand.
-2 of 9-
2025:JHHC:19138-DB
16. Sonu Oraon, Son of Sri Shankar Oraon, Resident of Gram-Barman
Diha, P.O. Ningni, P.S. Lohardaga, District Lohardaga, PIN- 835302,
Jharkhand.
17. Rajiv Ranjan, Son of Sri Raghunandan Rajak, Resident of 1/B,
Ambedkar Nagar, P.O. Sector-2, P.S. City Police Station, District Bokaro
Steel City, PIN-827001, Jharkhand.
.... Respondents/Petitioners
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---------
For the Appellants: Mr. Kumar Rahul Kamlesh, A.C. to S.C.-IV
---------
Reserved on: 08.07.2025 Pronounced on: 15 .07.2025
Per M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.
1. This application is filed by the applicants under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 410 days in filing the
Letters Patent Appeal challenging the judgment dt. 05.01.2024 passed in
W.P.(S) No. 6836 of 2018 of the learned Single Judge.
2. In the application filed seeking condonation of delay, it is
contended that prior to that date, on 27.12.2023 the then Inspector
General (Human Rights) was transferred and posted as Inspector General,
South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, but no regular posting was made on
the post of the Inspector General (Human Rights) and the I.G.
(Headquarters) was given additional charge of the post of I.G. (Human
Rights) through Government order dt. 09.01.2024.
3. It is then contended that there were two general elections in 2024
i.e. in the mid of the year and at the end of the year, and because of these
elections, apart from the regular responsibilities, the said officer was busy
in making transfers/postings of police personnel on priority basis. It is
-3 of 9-
2025:JHHC:19138-DB
contended that the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.
6836 of 2018 could not be placed before the said authority on time.
4. It is stated that the post of Inspector General (Human Rights) was
filled up by regular officer in January, 2025 and thereafter, a proposal
was mooted for taking an appropriate decision. It is stated that after going
through various departmental channels, on 25.02.2025 the file was sent to
the office of Advocate General, Jharkhand for obtaining necessary
opinion; on 28.02.2025, the Advocate General opined that Letters Patent
Appeal should be preferred through the Standing Counsel-IV; the
departmental file was returned from the office of the Advocate General
on 03.03.2025; and then it was sent to the conducting counsel where also
some time was consumed in formulating grounds and drafting memo of
Appeal. It is stated that ultimately the Appeal was drafted and the Letters
Patent Appeal was filed on 21.03.2025 and therefore, 410 days delay
occurred in this process.
5. It is stated that the delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is due
to inadvertence and the time consumed after January, 2025 was due to
procedural technicalities and was not deliberate and therefore, the said
period of delay is required to be condoned.
6. We may point out that though the judgment of the learned Single
Judge was pronounced on 05.01.2024, a perusal of the certified copy of
the impugned judgment filed with the accompanying Letters Patent
Appeal indicates that application for issuance of certified copy thereof
was made on 21.03.2025 i.e. more than a year from the date of
pronouncement of the judgment in the Writ petition. No explanation is
-4 of 9-
2025:JHHC:19138-DB
offered why application for certified copy of the judgment was not made
immediately after the judgment was pronounced.
7. Admittedly, the limitation period for filing a Letters Patent Appeal
challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge is only 30 days
from the date of pronouncement of the judgment.
8. Therefore, the Letters Patent Appeal ought to have been filed
within 30 days from 05.01.2024 when the judgment was pronounced.
9. Merely because at that point of time there was no regular officer
posted in the post of Inspector General (Human Rights), the respondents
cannot state that the steps could not be taken to file the Letters Patent
Appeal within the above said period because the I.G. (Headquarters) who
had given additional charge of post of Inspector General (Human Rights)
ought to have processed and taken steps to file the Letters Patent Appeal
within a reasonable time.
10. The fact that there were two general elections in mid 2024 and end
of 2024 cannot also be an excuse for not doing anything in the matter of
taking steps to file the Letters Patent Appeal and it is clearly a case of
abject negligence on the part of the applicants.
11. There is no excuse for starting the decision making process to file
the Letters Patent Appeal in January, 2025 one year after the judgment of
the learned Single Judge was pronounced and giving untenable excuses
for the delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal.
12. This conduct has been deprecated by the Supreme Court in several
cases.
-5 of 9-
2025:JHHC:19138-DB
13. 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
-6 of 9-
2025:JHHC:19138-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)
14. These observations equally apply to the instant case where the
applicants have acted in a similar manner as in the said case.
15. 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.
16. In Union of India & Anr. Vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D)
through his LR7, the Supreme Court held that it could not look into the
(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
-7 of 9-
2025:JHHC:19138-DB
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.
17. This was also reiterated in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.
Ramkumar Choudhary8.
18. 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.
Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 48636 of 2024 dt. 29.11.2024
-8 of 9-
2025:JHHC:19138-DB
19. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.
Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal is also dismissed.
20. All pending applications shall stand closed.
(M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
VK
-9 of 9-
