Jharkhand High Court

The State Of Jharkhand vs Surendra Kumar Singh on 5 June, 2025

Author: Rajesh Shankar

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

                                                               2025:JHHC:14478-DB




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      I.A. No. 11332 of 2023
                               In/And
                       L.P.A. No. 594 of 2023
     1. The State of Jharkhand
     2. Secretary, Ministry of Health Education, State of Jharkhand, P.O. &
        P.S. Ranchi, District-Ranchi
     3. Director General Health Services State of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S.
        Ranchi, District Ranchi ( Jharkhand)
     4. Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Palamu Division, P.O.
        & P.S. Palamau, District- Palamu ( Jharkhand)
     5. Civil Surgeon, Palamu, P.O. & P.S. Palamau, District Palamau
        (Jharkhand                         ..    ...     ...   Appellants
                               Versus
        Surendra Kumar Singh, son of Late Anjani Singh, resident of
        Village Puranadih, P.O. & P.S. Lesliganj, District Palamau
                                          ...      ...    Respondent
                               ---------

     CORAM:          HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
                            ---------
     For the Appellants : Mr. Md. Asghar, A.C. to Sr. S.C. II
     For the Respondent:    Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate
                            Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate
                            --------
     Reserved on: 28.04.2025             Pronounced on: 5/06/2025
     Per M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.

1) The instant interlocutory application is filed under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act, 1963 by the applicants to condone the delay of 211

days in filing this appeal challenging the judgment dt. 6.2.2023 of the

learned Single Judge passed in W.P.(S) No. 3665 of 2019.

2) In the application filed seeking condonation of delay, it is stated that the

judgment of the learned Single Judge was forwarded to Deputy Director

of the applicants' department through a noting dt. 14.3.2023 and it was

2025:JHHC:14478-DB

placed before the Additional Chief Secretary on 21.3.2023, who then

asked for discussion on the matter with the service record. It is stated

that thereafter proposal to seek the service record from the Civil

Surgeon was moved and it was approved on 28.4.2023. The Civil

Surgeon, Palamu then sent the record through his letter dt. 3.5.2023.

Thereafter the file was again placed before the Additional Secretary on

15.5.2023 and a decision was then taken to send the file to the Advocate

General for his opinion on 22.5.2023.

3) It is stated that the Advocate General recommended for filing of appeal

on 13.6.2023 and then the file was sent for preparing grounds of appeal

which was prepared on 1.7.2023. The file was then put up for approval

of the Additional Chief Secretary on 19.7.2023 who asked for further

discussion on the same day.

4) It is stated that there was further revision of the grounds of appeal on

13.9.2023, draft of the appeal was finally approved on 4.10.2023 and

the appeal was filed on 10.10.2023.

5) It is stated that the delay occurred on account of procedural

technicalities and was not deliberate and also because there are several

layers of decision making in the government which consumed much

time.

6) From the record, it is clear that the judgment of learned Single Judge

was pronounced on 6.2.2023 in WP(S) No. 3665 of 2019 in the

presence of the counsel for the applicants. But application for issuance

of the certified copy of the said judgment was made five months later

2025:JHHC:14478-DB

on 7.7.2023 and it was obtained on 18.7.2023 and the appeal itself came

to be filed, admittedly on 10.10.2023.

7) The applicants were undoubtedly aware that the limitation for filing the

Letters Patent Appeal is only 30 days from the date of the judgment of

the learned Single Judge was obtained, but it appears that the file was

moved from table to table mechanically, and even after the Advocate

General recommended for filing of appeal on 13.6.2023, almost four

months later, the Letters Patent Appeal has been filed.

8) Merely because the applicants are a Government department, they

cannot claim that the delay is to be condoned mechanically because

there is no separate period of limitation prescribed for the Government

departments.

9) 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.

(2012) 3 SCC 563

2025:JHHC:14478-DB

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 methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The

2025:JHHC:14478-DB

law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government." (emphasis supplied)

10) These observations equally apply to the instant case where the applicants

have acted in a similar manner as in the said case.

11) 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.

12) In Union of India & Anr. Vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D)

through his LR7, the Supreme Court held that it could not 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

(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