Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... vs Chumnu Oraon on 18 June, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:15938-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No.189 of 2025
-----
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Higher Technical
Education and Skill Development Department, Government
Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi
2. The Director, Higher Technical Education and Skill Development
Department, Government Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda,
Ranchi. .......... Appellants.
-Versus-
1. Chumnu Oraon, S/o Sukra Oraon, R/o village & P.O. Pali, P.S.,
Ratu, District-Ranchi.
2. Braj Kishore Bhagat, S/o Late Angunu Bhagat, R/o Village Jangi,
P.O. Lawagai, P.S. Kuru, District-Ranchi.
3. The Ranchi University through its Registrar, Ranchi.
.......... Respondents.
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Appellants : Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, AC to AAG-III
For the Res. No.3 : Mr. Pratyush, Advocate
-----
Order No.04 Date: 18.06.2025
1. Counsel for the appellants seeks to withdraw I.A. No.3951 of
2025 with liberty to purse I.A. No.6083 of 2025.
2. Accordingly, I.A. No.6081 of 2025 is allowed for the said prayer.
I.A. No.6083 of 2025:
3. This application is filed by the applicants seeking condonation of
delay of 397 days in filing this Letters Patent Appeal challenging
the judgment dated 21st August, 2023 of the learned Single Judge
in W.P.(S) No.3011 of 2020.
4. In the application filed seeking condonation of delay, it is stated
that the delay was caused due to procedural formalities and there
was no wilful omission on the part of the applicants.
5. It is further stated that after receipt of the copy of the judgment,
the same was put up on 18th December, 2023 before the Deputy
Director of the applicant-Department for doing the needful; on
2025:JHHC:15938-DB
3rd January, 2024, he placed it before the Under Secretary; on 5th
January, 2024, the Under Secretary desired grounds of appeal to
be prepared in the matter; the file was then sent to the retainer
for preparation of grounds of appeal on 8 th January, 2024; and
on 20th January, 2024 grounds of appeal were drafted and
submitted to the Under Secretary.
6. It is next stated that on 24th January, 2024, grounds of appeal
were put up before the Deputy Director for approval and for
appointment of Advocate in the matter and he sent it to the Under
Secretary for appointment of Advocate. The Under Secretary then
sent the file on 5th February, 2024 to the Director, who then
forwarded it to the Principal Secretary of the applicant-
Department. Thereafter on 8th February, 2024, the file was sent
to the office of the Advocate General for opinion and he gave an
opinion on 9th February, 2024 to file the appeal and ultimately the
appeal was drafted on 14th May, 2024 and was filed on 30th July,
2024.
7. Admittedly, the judgment of the learned Single Judge was
pronounced on 21st August, 2023 in W.P.(S) No.3011 of 2020 but
application for certified copy of the same was admittedly made
on 26th July, 2024, almost a year later. There is no explanation
offered for this delay in applying for certified copy of the
judgment of the learned Single Judge. It appears that the
applicants though aware that the period of limitation for filing the
appeal is only 30 days, have leisurely proceeded in the matter.
2025:JHHC:15938-DB
8. We are, therefore, satisfied that sufficient cause has not been
shown by the applicants for condonation of the inordinate long
delay of 397 days in filing the appeal.
9. In Postmaster General and others v. Living Media India
Limited and another, reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563, 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 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
2025:JHHC:15938-DB
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)
10. In view of the above settled legal position, the application for
condonation of delay is dismissed.
11. Consequently, this appeal is also dismissed.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Sanjay/Rohit
