Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand; vs Dr. Maithli Sharan on 5 June, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:14482-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
I.A. No. 9253 of 2024
In / And
L.P.A. No. 670 of 2023
1. The State of Jharkhand;
2. Principal Secretary, Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare
Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Nepal House, P.O. &
P.S.-Doranda, District- Ranchi;
3. Joint Secretary, Medical Education and Family Welfare Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda,
District-Ranchi;
4. Deputy Secretary, Medical Education and Family Welfare Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. - Doranda,
District - Ranchi.
... Respondents/Appellants
Versus
Dr. Maithli Sharan, son of Sri Gupteshwar Prasad, resident of Steel Gate,
Saraidhela, P.O. & P.S.-Saraidhela, District-Dhanbad.
... Writ Petitioner/Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---------
For the Appellants: Mrs. Sunita Kumari, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-II
---------
Reserved on: 05.05.2025 Pronounced on: 5/06/2025
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 269 days in filing the Letters
Patent Appeal challenging the judgment dt. 06.04.2023 of the learned
Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 1289 of 2014.
2. In the application seeking condonation of delay, it is stated that the
petitioner gave a representation on 08.05.2023 along with photocopy of the
judgment dt. 06.04.2023 and the file was placed before the concerned
Section on 12.05.2023. It is further stated that the file was thereafter placed
before the competent authority through proper channel on 19.06.2023 and
it was then sent to the Vidhi Prashaka who directed for seeking legal
opinion of the Advocate General on 28.07.2023.
2025:JHHC:14482-DB
3. It is stated that the grounds of appeal were prepared and the same
were forwarded to the office of the Advocate General for seeking his
opinion and the Advocate General allotted the file to the office of the
Senior Standing Counsel-II.
4. It is stated that the draft was prepared and thereafter file was sent to
the applicants' Department for approval and after approval of the
Department, it is being filed. It is contended that the delay was due to
procedural technicalities and was not deliberate.
5. The paper-book indicates that though the judgment of the learned
Single Judge was pronounced on 06.04.2023 in W.P. (S) No.1289 of 2014,
the Letters Patent Appeal against the same was filed on 30th November
2023.
6. Even the certified copy of the impugned order has not been filed
along with the Letters Patent Appeal and only a true copy certified by the
counsel for the applicants-State, is filed.
7. No explanation is offered why the applicants have not applied for
certified copy of the impugned judgment after it was pronounced on
06.04.2023.
8. Admittedly the limitation period for filing the Letters Patent Appeal
is only 30 days from the date of pronouncement of the judgment.
Therefore, it is expected of the applicants to show more diligence in
ensuring that the appeal is filed within a reasonable time.
9. When the applicants were aware of the judgment of the learned
Single Judge dt. 06.04.2023 when it was submitted by the petitioner on
08.05.2023, they cannot leisurely process the file for decision-making as if
they have all the time in the world to file the appeal and they can file it
whenever they choose.
2025:JHHC:14482-DB
10. The Supreme Court has deprecated the practice on behalf of the
State authorities in moving the file from table to table leisurely and filing
appeals way beyond the period of limitation prescribed therefor.
11. 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 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
(2012) 3 SCC 563
2025:JHHC:14482-DB
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)
12. These observations equally apply to the instant case where the
applicants have acted in a similar manner as in the said case.
13. 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.
14. 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;
(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:14482-DB
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.
15. This was also reiterated in State of Madhya Pradesh v.
Ramkumar Choudhary8.
16. We are satisfied, in the facts and circumstances of the case, that
sufficient cause has not been shown by the applicants for condonation of
the inordinate delay of 269 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal against
the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
17. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay (I.A. No.9253
of 2024) is dismissed and consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal is also
dismissed.
18. 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
