Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... vs Diwakar Pandey on 11 March, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
I.A. No.5758 of 2024
IN/AND
L.P.A. No. 361 of 2024
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/Principal Secretary, School
Education and Literacy Department, Ranchi, having office at MDI
Building Dhurwa, PO & PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
2. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Education
Establishment Committee, Koderma having office at PO & PS Koderma,
Dist. : Koderma.
3. The District Superintendent of Education, Koderma having office at PO
& PS Koderma, Dist. : Koderma.
... Respondents/Appellants
Versus
Diwakar Pandey, aged about 50 years, son of : Sri Mahesh Pandey, resident
of : Village-Jainagar, Koderma, PO & PS Jainagar, Dist. : Koderma.
... Writ Petitioner/Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Appellants: Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Sr. S.C.-I
For the Respondent: Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate
---------
Reserved on: 27.02.2025 Pronounced on: 11/03/2025
Per M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.
1. This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
to condone the delay of 283 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal
challenging the judgment dt. 29.08.2023 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.
(S) No. 5631 of 2022.
2. In the application seeking condonation of delay, it is contended that
the fact of disposal of the said Writ petition was informed to the applicants'
Department; after receiving a letter on 24.04.2024, the case file was put up
before the Assistant Director of the applicants' Department for perusal; he
directed the Retainer Advocate for preparing the grounds of appeal; and
after several rounds of discussions between them, a decision was taken to
prefer appeal.
3. It was further stated that after preparation of grounds of appeal, it was
put up before the competent authority to take a final decision on filing of
appeal; thereafter it was put up before the Joint Secretary of the Department
for approval, and after such approval, the District Superintendent of
Education, Koderma was authorised to file appeal.
4. As per the application, the Advocate General also gave his opinion on
01.05.2024 and thereafter the appeal was filed on 12.06.2024 through the
Sr. Standing Counsel-I.
5. Subsequently, a supplementary affidavit was filed adding more
details to the events which transpired after the judgment was delivered in
the writ petition on 29.08.2023.
6. It is stated that the District Education Establishment Committee,
Koderma on 26.10.2023 decided to file an appeal challenging the judgment
of the learned Single Judge; on 23.02.2024 new District Superintendent of
Education, Koderma took charge of the said post; on 09.03.2024, present
District Superintendent of Education, Koderma took charge of the district of
Koderma and he was assigned additional charge of District Superintendent
of Education, Koderma and after joining the said post, the present District
Superintendent of Education-cum-District Education Officer, Koderma took
the matter seriously.
7. It is stated that during Lok Sabha Election 2024, he was assigned the
duty of Assistant Nodal Officer for Manpower Management, Karmik
Koshang and Nodal Officer of the Training Cell till 20.05.2024.
8. According to the applicants, the Retainer Counsel of the applicants'
Department was directed to prepare the grounds of appeal on 09.04.2024
which was then prepared and placed before the Director of the School
Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand (Primary
Education).
9. Through a letter dt. 09.04.2024 and another letter dt. 24.04.2024, the
Director of School Education and Literacy Department sought permission to
file appeal; the file was then placed before the Assistant Director on
24.04.2024 to take steps for filing appeal; on next day the Section Officer of
the Department forwarded the file to the Joint Secretary of the applicants'
Department; on the following day, the Joint Secretary of the applicants'
Department after examining the grounds of appeal approved for filing of the
appeal and placed it before the Director.
10. It is stated that thereafter on 29.04.2024, the Director of the
applicants' Department sought opinion from the Advocate General for filing
appeal and on 01.05.2024, the Advocate General advised for filing of appeal
through the Senior Standing Counsel No.1 and thereafter, the present appeal
was filed on 12.06.2024.
11. It is also mentioned that a Contempt application being Cont. Case
(Civil) No. 276 of 2024 was also filed by the respondent seeking
implementation of the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
12. We have noted the contentions of the counsel for the applicants.
13. When the order of the learned Single Judge was passed on
29.08.2023 and the applicants' Department was well aware of the judgment,
it appears that the papers were moved from one table to another table, from
one office to another office, in a very casual manner which ultimately
resulted in inordinate delay in filing of appeal by 283 days, on 12.06.2024.
14. The plea about the Officer getting involved in the Lok Sabha 2024
election has no relevance, because, the said election was held in May 2024 -
long after the order was passed by the learned Single Judge.
15. At every stage of the matter, there was lethargy and negligence
shown by the applicants in taking steps to file the appeal within time.
16. 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-
incharge has filed any explanation for not applying the certified copy
within the prescribed period. The other dates mentioned in the
(2012) 3 SCC 563
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)
17. These observations equally apply to the instant case where the
applicants have acted in a similar manner as in the said case.
18. 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.
19. In Union of India Vs. 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
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.
20. This was also reiterated in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramkumar
Choudhary8.
21. 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 283 days
in filing the appeal.
22. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Consequently, the Letters
Patent Appeal is also dismissed.
23. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Manoj/-
Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 48636 of 2024 dt.29.11.2024
