Jharkhand High Court
M/S Sri Balaji Coke Industries vs The Central Coalfields Limited on 8 October, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:31069
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No.676 of 2025
With
I.A. No.8490 of 2025
------
1. M/s Sri Balaji Coke Industries, having its unit at
Baharechnagar, Ramgarh, P.O. and P.S.-Mandu, District-
Ramgarh through its Proprietor Suresh Chandra Agarwal,
aged about 54 years, Son of Late Nandlal Agarwal,
Resident of Baharechnagar, P.O. and P.S.-Mandu,
District- Ramgarh.
2. M/s Rahul Coke Pvt. Ltd. Having its unit at Jiwadhipur,
Ramnagar Industrial Arae, Chandauli (U.P.), P.O. and
P.S.-Ramnagar, District-Chandauli, through its Director
Sunil Kumar Verma, aged about 65 years, Son of Late
Rameshwar Prasad Verma, Resident of Jodhipur,
Ramnagar, P.O. and P.S.-Ramnagar, District-Chandauli
(U.P.).
3. Bharechnagar Coke Manufacturing Co. having its unit at
Bharechnagar, P.O.-Bharechnagar, P.S.-Mandu, District-
Ramgarh-829117 through its Proprietor- Binod Kumar
Singh, aged about 58 years, Son of Shri M.D. Singh,
Resident of Suresh Colony, Hazaribagh, P.O. Hazaribagh,
P.S.-Hazaribagh Sadar, District-Hazaribagh.
4. Super Fuels having its unit at Demotand, P.O.-Morangi,
P.S.-Hazaribagh Mufassil, District-Hazaribagh through its
partner Nakul Prasad, aged about 63 years, Son of Piari
Saw, Resident of Demotand, P.O.-Morangi, P.S.
Hazaribagh Mufassil, District- Hazaribagh.
5. Super Coke Industries having its Unit at Demotand, P.O.-
Morangi, P.S.-Hazaribagh Muffasil, District-Hazaribagh
through its Proprietor Abhay Kumar Singh, aged about 61
years, Son of Sri R.B. Singh, Resident of Suresh Colony,
Hazaribagh, P.O.-Hazaribagh, P.S.-Hazaribagh Sadar,
District-Hazaribagh.
6. Pawan Solvent & Chemical, having its unit at Sewta, P.О.-
Marar, P.S.-Mandu, District-Ramgarh through its partner
Pawan Kumar Agrawal, aged about 65 years, Son of Late
Badri Prasad Agrawal, Resident of Main Road, Ramgarh
Cantt., P.O. and P.S.-Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh.
7. Pawan Udyog having its unit at Pilawal Road near Union
Bank of India, Millat Colony, Hazaribagh, P.O.-
Hazaribagh, P.S.-Sadar Hazaribagh, District-Hazaribagh
through its partner Manzoor Hassan, aged about 57 years,
Son of Abdul Hamid, Resident of Pilawal Road near Union
Bank of India, Millat Colony, P.O.-Hazaribagh, P.S.-Sadar
Hazaribagh, District-Hazaribagh.
8. Om Coke Industries having its unit at Bongabar, P.O.-
Bharechnagar, P.S.-Mandu, District-Ramgarh through its
Page 1
2025:JHHC:31069
partner Istiyaque Ahmad, aged about 36 years, Son of
Jamaluddin Mian, Resident of Millat Colony, near Union
Bank of India, Pilawal Road, Hazaribagh, P.O.-Hazaribagh,
P.S.-Sadar Hazaribagh, District-Hazaribagh.
9. Sri Durga Coke Company having its unit at Bongabar,
P.O.-Bharechnagar, P.S.-Mandu, District-Ramgarh
through its partner Manzoor Hassan, aged about 57 years,
Son of Abdul Hamid, Resident of Millat Colony, Near
Union Bank of India, Pilawala Road, P.O.-Hazaribagh,
P.S.-Sadar Hazaribagh, District-Hazaribagh.
10. Capital Fuel Co. Pvt. Ltd. having its unit at Village-
Kakori, P.O.-Trilochan Mahadev, P.S.-Jalalpur, District-
Jaunpur (U.P.) through its Director- Krishna Kumar, aged
about 60 years, Son of Late Jugal Choudhary, Resident of
Gola Road, Ramgarh, P.O. and P.S.-Ramgarh, District-
Ramgarh. ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The Central Coalfields Limited, a subsidiary of Coal India
Limited (Sales & Marketing Department) through its
Chairman-cum- Managing Director, having its office at
Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali,
District-Ranchi.
2. The Coal India Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director, having its office at 10, Netaji Subhash
Road, Kolkata-700001.
3. The General Manager (Sales & Marketing), Central
Coalfields Limited, a subsidiary of Coal India Limited
having its office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O.-G.P.O.,
P.S.-Kotwali, District-Ranchi.
... ... Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Diwakar Jha, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
: Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate
------
Order No.07/Dated 8 October, 2025
th
1. The instant civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for
restoration of writ petition being W.P.(C) No.847 of 2016
which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated
11.09.2019. Since there is delay of 1340 days in filing the
instant civil miscellaneous petition, therefore, the delay
Page 2
2025:JHHC:31069
condonation application being I.A. No.8490 of 2025 has been
filed.
2. The matter has been listed today on Board for passing
appropriate order on delay condonation application, therefore,
the hearing on the delay condonation application has been
made.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued by
pressing the interlocutory application to condone the delay of
1340 days.
4. The argument has been advanced by referring to
paragraph 9 wherein the reason of causing delay of 1340 days
is mentioned as having no knowledge with respect to the fate
of the writ petition.
5. It has been stated that when one of the petitioners came
to High Court randomly, he has got information about the
dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has
submitted that the delay in filing the instant petition may be
condoned.
7. An affidavit by way of objection has been filed on behalf
of Central Coalfields Limited raising serious objection in
condoning the delay of 1340 days.
8. It has been contended that the reason which has been
shown for condoning the delay cannot be considered to be the
sufficient cause.
Page 3
2025:JHHC:31069
9. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and
gone through the delay condonation application, particularly,
paragraphs 9 to 13 thereof wherein the following grounds
have been taken due to which the delay of 1340 has been
caused :-
"9. That since it was not in the knowledge of the counsel for
the petitioners as such they never communicated the
petitioners about the order dated 11.09.2019 passed by this
Hon'ble Court in the case of the petitioners being W.P.(C)
No.847 of 2016.
10. That the petitioners were waiting for outcome of the writ
petition and on query made by the petitioners they were
replied that the matter will come in usual course and when
the case will be listed, they will be informed.
11. That recently, in the 1st week of May, 2025 one of the
petitioner visited the office of the counsel and enquired
about his case, thereafter on verification of the status of the
case, he came to know that the cases were dismissed for
non-prosecution vide order dated 11.09.2019.
12. That thereafter he informed all other writ petitioners
about the order of the Hon'ble Court dismissing their case.
Then the petitioners took advice of counsel of this Hon'ble
Court about the future course of action upon which the
petitioners were advised to file a restoration application.
Accordingly, after obtaining certified copy of order dated
11.09.2019 instant restoration application is being filed.
13. That the petitioners are victim of circumstances and as
such they could not filed application for restoration of their
writ petitions immediately after the order dated 11.09.2019."
10. This Court, before considering the reason as stated in
the interlocutory application, said to be sufficient or not, to
condone the delay of 1340 days, needs to refer herein the
various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the issue of
Page 4
2025:JHHC:31069
delay condonation.
11. It requires to refer herein that the Law of limitation is
enshrined in the legal maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis
litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to
litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the
rights of the parties, rather the idea is that every legal remedy
must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time, as
has been held in the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Brijesh Kumar & Ors. Vrs. State of Haryana &
Ors., (2014) 11 SCC 351.
12. The Privy Council in General Accident Fire and Life
Assurance Corpn. Ltd. v. Janmahomed Abdul Rahim,
(1939-40) 67 IA 416, relied upon the writings of Mr. Mitra in
Tagore Law Lecturers, 1932, wherein, it has been said that:
"A Law of limitation and prescription may appear to
operate harshly and unjustly in a particular case,
but if the law provides for a limitation, it is to be
enforced even at the risk of hardship to a particular
party as the Judge cannot, on equitable grounds,
enlarge the time allowed by the law, postpone its
operation, or introduce exceptions not recognized by
law."
13. In P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, (1997) 7
SCC 556, the Apex Court while considering a case of
condonation of delay of 565 days, wherein no explanation
much less a reasonable or satisfactory explanation for
condonation of delay had been given, held at paragraph-6 as
under:
Page 5
2025:JHHC:31069
"6. Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular
party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when
the statute so prescribes and the courts have no
power to extend the period of limitation on equitable
grounds."
14. While considering the similar issue, this Court in Esha
Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013)
12 SCC 649, wherein, it has been held as under:
"21.5 (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party
seeking condonation of delay is a significant and
relevant fact.
21.7. (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to
encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it
cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play.
21.9. (ix) the conduct, behavior and attitude of a
party relating to its inaction or negligence are
relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is
so as the fundamental principle is that the courts
are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice
in respect of both parties and the said principle
cannot be given a total go-by in the name of liberal
approach.
22.4. (d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay
as a non-serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical
propensity can be exhibited in a nonchalant manner
requires to be curbed, of course, within legal
parameters."
15. It is settled position of Law that when a litigant does not
act with bona fide motive and at the same time, due to
inaction and laches on its part, the period of limitation for
filing the appeal expires, such lack of bona fide and gross
inaction and negligence are the vital factors which should be
taken into consideration while considering the question of
Page 6
2025:JHHC:31069
condonation of delay.
16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramlal, Motilal and
Chhotelal Vrs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., (1962) 2 SCR 762,
has held that merely because sufficient cause has been made
out in the facts of the given case, there is no right to the
appellant to have delay condoned. At paragraph-12, it has
been held as hereunder:-
"12. It is, however, necessary to emphasise that even
after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not
entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a
matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a
condition precedent for the exercise of the
discretionary jurisdiction vested in the court by
Section 5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing
further has to be done; the application for condoning
delay has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If
sufficient cause is shown then the court has to
enquire whether in its discretion it should condone
the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally
introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and
it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its
bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope
of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary
power after sufficient cause is shown would
naturally be limited only to such facts as the court
may regard as relevant. It cannot justify an enquiry
as to why the party was sitting idle during all the
time available to it. In this connection we may point
out that considerations of bona fides or due
diligence are always material and relevant when the
court is dealing with applications made under
Section 14 of the Limitation Act. In dealing with
such applications the court is called upon to
consider the effect of the combined provisions of
Sections 5 and 14. Therefore, in our opinion,
Page 7
2025:JHHC:31069
considerations which have been expressly made
material and relevant by the provisions of Section 14
cannot to the same extent and in the same manner
be invoked in dealing with applications which fall to
be decided only under Section 5 without reference to
Section 14. In the present case there is no difficulty
in holding that the discretion should be exercised in
favour of the appellant because apart from the
general criticism made against the appellant's lack
of diligence during the period of limitation no other
fact had been adduced against it. Indeed, as we have
already pointed out, the learned Judicial
Commissioner rejected the appellant's application
for condonation of delay only on the ground that it
was appellant's duty to file the appeal as soon as
possible within the period prescribed, and that, in
our opinion, is not a valid ground."
17. Thus, it is evident that while considering the delay
condonation application, the Court of Law is required to
consider the sufficient cause for condonation of delay as also
the approach of the litigant as to whether it is bona fide or not
as because after expiry of the period of limitation, a right is
accrued in favour of the other side and as such, it is
necessary to look into the bona fide motive of the litigant and
at the same time, due to inaction and laches on its part.
18. It also requires to refer herein that what is the meaning
of 'sufficient cause'. The consideration of meaning of
'sufficient cause' has been made in Basawaraj & Anr. Vrs.
Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, [(2013) 14 SCC 81], wherein,
it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraphs 9 to
15 hereunder:-
Page 8
2025:JHHC:31069
"9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which the
defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The
meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or
"enough", inasmuch as may be necessary to answer
the purpose intended. Therefore, the word
"sufficient" embraces no more than that which
provides a platitude, which when the act done
suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the
facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly
examined from the viewpoint of a reasonable
standard of a cautious man. In this context,
"sufficient cause" means that the party should not
have acted in a negligent manner or there was a
want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and
circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that
the party has "not acted diligently" or "remained
inactive". However, the facts and circumstances of
each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the
court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason
that whenever the court exercises discretion, it has
to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must
satisfy the court that he was prevented by any
"sufficient cause" from prosecuting his case, and
unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the
court should not allow the application for
condonation of delay. The court has to examine
whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a
device to cover an ulterior purpose. (See Manindra
Land and Building Corpn. Ltd. v. Bhutnath Banerjee
[AIR 1964 SC 1336], Mata Din v. A. Narayanan
[(1969) 2 SCC 770], Parimal v. Veena [(2011) 3 SCC
545] and Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corpn.
of Brihan Mumbai [(2012) 5 SCC 157].)
10. In Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar [AIR 1964 SC
993] this Court explained the difference between a
"good cause" and a "sufficient cause" and observed
that every "sufficient cause" is a good cause and vice
versa. However, if any difference exists it can only be
that the requirement of good cause is complied with
Page 9
2025:JHHC:31069
on a lesser degree of proof than that of "sufficient
cause".
11. The expression "sufficient cause" should be given
a liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial
justice is done, but only so long as negligence,
inaction or lack of bona fides cannot be imputed to
the party concerned, whether or not sufficient cause
has been furnished, can be decided on the facts of a
particular case and no straitjacket formula is
possible.
(Vide Madanlal v. Shyamlal [(2002) 1 SCC 535]
and Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao [(2002) 3 SCC
195] .)
12. It is a settled legal proposition that law of
limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it
has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute
so prescribes. The court has no power to extend the
period of limitation on equitable grounds. "A result
flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A
court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve
what it considers a distress resulting from its
operation." The statutory provision may cause
hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but
the court has no choice but to enforce it giving full
effect to the same. The legal maxim dura lex sed
lex which means "the law is hard but it is the law",
stands attracted in such a situation. It has
consistently been held that, "inconvenience is not" a
decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a
statute.
13. The statute of limitation is founded on public
policy, its aim being to secure peace in the
community, to suppress fraud and perjury, to
quicken diligence and to prevent oppression. It seeks
to bury all acts of the past which have not been
agitated unexplainably and have from lapse of time
become stale. According to Halsbury's Laws of
England, Vol. 28, p. 266:
"605. Policy of the Limitation Acts.--The courts
Page 10
2025:JHHC:31069
have expressed at least three differing reasons
supporting the existence of statutes of limitations
namely, (1) that long dormant claims have more of
cruelty than justice in them, (2) that a defendant
might have lost the evidence to disprove a stale
claim, and (3) that persons with good causes of
actions should pursue them with reasonable
diligence."
An unlimited limitation would lead to a sense of
insecurity and uncertainty, and therefore, limitation
prevents disturbance or deprivation of what may
have been acquired in equity and justice by long
enjoyment or what may have been lost by a party's
own inaction, negligence or laches. (See Popat and
Kotecha Property v. SBI Staff Assn. [(2005) 7 SCC
510] , Rajender Singh v. Santa Singh [(1973) 2 SCC
705 : AIR 1973 SC 2537] and Pundlik Jalam
Patil v. Jalgaon Medium Project [(2008) 17 SCC 448]
14. In P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of
Karnataka [(2002) 4 SCC 578 ] this Court held that
judicially engrafting principles of limitation amounts
to legislating and would fly in the face of law laid
down by the Constitution Bench in Abdul Rehman
Antulay v. R.S. Nayak [(1992) 1 SCC 225].
15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the
effect that where a case has been presented in the
court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain
the court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which
means an adequate and enough reason which
prevented him to approach the court within
limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or
for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and
circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted
diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a
justified ground to condone the delay. No court could
be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by
imposing any condition whatsoever. The application
is to be decided only within the parameters laid down
by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay.
Page 11
2025:JHHC:31069
In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a
litigant to approach the court on time condoning the
delay without any justification, putting any condition
whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation
of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to
showing utter disregard to the legislature."
19. Thus, it is evident that the sufficient cause means that
the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or
there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts
and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the
party has "not acted deliberately" or "remained inactive".
However, the facts and circumstances of each case must
afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to
exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the Court
exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The
applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by
any "sufficient cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a
satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not
allow the application for condonation of delay. The Court has
to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a
device to cover the ulterior purpose as has been held in
Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. Vrs.
Bhutnath Banerjee & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 1336, Lala
Matadin Vrs. A. Narayanan, (1969) 2 SCC 770, Parimal
Vrs. Veena @ Bharti, (2011) 3 SCC 545 and Maniben
Devraj Shah Vrs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan
Mumbai, (2012) 5 SCC 157.
Page 12
2025:JHHC:31069
20. It has further been held in the aforesaid judgments that
the expression 'sufficient cause' should be given a liberal
interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done, but
only so long as negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides
cannot be imputed to the party concerned, whether or not
sufficient cause has been furnished, can be decided on the
facts of a particular case and no straitjacket formula is
possible, reference in this regard may be made to the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ram Nath
Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Ors. Vrs. Gobardhan Sao &
Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 195, wherein, at paragraph-12, it has
been held as hereunder:-
"12. Thus it becomes plain that the expression
"sufficient cause" within the meaning of Section 5 of
the Act or Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code or any other
similar provision should receive a liberal
construction so as to advance substantial justice
when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fides
is imputable to a party. In a particular case whether
explanation furnished would constitute "sufficient
cause" or not will be dependent upon facts of each
case. There cannot be a straitjacket formula for
accepting or rejecting explanation furnished for the
delay caused in taking steps. But one thing is clear
that the courts should not proceed with the
tendency of finding fault with the cause shown and
reject the petition by a slipshod order in over-
jubilation of disposal drive. Acceptance of
explanation furnished should be the rule and
refusal, an exception, more so when no negligence or
inaction or want of bona fides can be imputed to the
defaulting party. On the other hand, while
Page 13
2025:JHHC:31069
considering the matter the courts should not lose
sight of the fact that by not taking steps within the
time prescribed a valuable right has accrued to the
other party which should not be lightly defeated by
condoning delay in a routine-like manner. However,
by taking a pedantic and hypertechnical view of the
matter the explanation furnished should not be
rejected when stakes are high and/or arguable
points of facts and law are involved in the case,
causing enormous loss and irreparable injury to the
party against whom the lis terminates, either by
default or inaction and defeating valuable right of
such a party to have the decision on merit. While
considering the matter, courts have to strike a
balance between resultant effect of the order it is
going to pass upon the parties either way."
21. It is, thus, evident that the period of delay is not material
in condoning the delay, rather, the delay is to be condoned
depending upon the sufficient cause, if shown by the party.
22. This Court, after considering the aforesaid proposition
and the explanation furnished in the delay condonation
application to condone the inordinate delay of 1340 days, is
proceeding to examine as to whether the explanation
furnished can be said to be sufficient explanation for
condoning the delay.
23. The reason has been assigned that the writ petitioners
were having no knowledge about the fate of the writ petition
which stood dismissed vide order dated 11.09.2019. The order
having come to knowledge of the writ petitioners, i.e., after
lapse of 1340 days, then the instant civil miscellaneous
petition has been filed for restoration along with delay
Page 14
2025:JHHC:31069
condonation application.
24. This Court is of the view that merely by making a bald
statement that the petitioners were having no knowledge
about the fate of the writ petition and only after coming to this
Cout they were apprised about the fate of the writ petition,
thereafter the instant petition has been filed, cannot be said
to be sufficient cause.
25. Even accepting that there is non-communication of the
said order by the learned counsel, however, there is no
ground taken in specific word in the delay condonation
application but that can only be construed to be sufficient
cause if the concerned Advocate would have been impleaded
as party or even his name should have been referred in order
to ascertain the aforesaid factual aspect.
26. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the explanation
which has been furnished by the petitioners in the delay
condonation application, cannot be said to be a sufficient
cause to condone the inordinate delay.
27. This Court, after taking into consideration the ratio laid
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments referred
hereinabove as also the explanation furnished in the delay
condonation application, is of the view that no sufficient
cause has been shown to condone inordinate delay of 1340
days in filing the civil miscellaneous petition.
28. Accordingly, the delay condonation application being
Page 15
2025:JHHC:31069
I.A. No. 8490 of 2025 is hereby dismissed.
29. In consequence thereof, the instant civil miscellaneous
petition also stands dismissed.
30. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand
dismissed.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Date : 8th October, 2025
Birendra/A.F.R.
Uploaded on 09.10.2025
Page 16
