Jharkhand High Court

The State Of Jharkhand vs Radhe Shyam Pandey on 16 September, 2025

Author: Rajesh Shankar

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

                                               2025:JHHC:28272-DB




  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    I.A. No. 6918 of 2025
                          In / And
                    L.P.A. 721 of 2023
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department,
   Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. and P.S. Doranda,
   District- Ranchi
3. The Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of
   Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi
4. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Government of
   Jharkhand, Ranchi, Nepal House, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District-
   Ranchi                              ...   Appellants/Respondents
                          Versus
1. Radhe Shyam Pandey, son of Late Kailash Pati Pandey, presently
   residing at C/o Shri P.K. Shrivastava, Ram Janki Path, Near Kali
   Mandir, Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, Kankarbagh, P.O. Kankarbagh,
   P.S. Kankarbagh, District- Patna, State- Bihar
                                         ... Respondent/Writ Petitioner
2. The Accountant General, Jharkhand, North Office Para, Shyamali
   Colony, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi.
                                         ...  Respondent/Respondent
                          ---------
CORAM:              HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
                          ---------
For the Appellants:       Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Sr. S.C.-I
For Resp. No.1:           Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate
                          Mr. Raj, Advocate
For Resp. No.2:           Mr. Rohit Sinha, Advocate
                          ---------
08/Dated: 16.09.2025
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.(Oral)

1. Heard.

2. By medium of this application, the appellants-State has sought

condonation of delay of 242 days that has crept up in filing of the

appeal.

2025:JHHC:28272-DB

3. Going by the averments made in the application, it is

abundantly clear that even though the respondents (applicants herein)

were communicated the outcome of the order dated 22nd of March

2023 on that day itself, however, the respondents for the first time

placed the matter before the Under Secretary after nearly three

months on 7th of June 2023 and the same is alleged to have been

forwarded to the Secretary of the Department with a detailed noting

regarding the outcome of the writ petition along with recommendation

for filing of the appeal.

4. The Secretary of the Department is alleged to have considered

the matter and referred it to the Law Department, but the date on

which such reference has been forwarded has not been mentioned in

the application.

5. It is thereafter averred that the file on receipt of by the Law

Department was endorsed to the learned Advocate General for

obtaining legal opinion as to whether there is any scope for filing

appeal against the order dated 22nd of March 2023.

6. On 13th of June 2023, the learned Advocate General formed an

opinion and recommended for filing of the Letters Patent Appeal

against the impugned order.

7. Following the said recommendations, grounds of appeals were

directed to be drafted through Retainer Counsel of the Department on

16th of June 2023 itself and it is alleged that the same took additional

time due to his preoccupation and some other assigned matters and

came to be submitted after gap of two months in August 2023.

2025:JHHC:28272-DB

8. It is further averred that after obtaining the draft appeal, the file

was endorsed and sent to the Department at Secretary Level for

approval of the proposed grounds of appeal in September 2023.

9. It is averred that after approval of the grounds of appeal, the

original file filed along with all supporting documents was forwarded to

the Office of the Senior Standing Counsel-I who was entrusted to draft

and file the appeal in the 1st week of October 2023, and thereafter the

appeal was drafted as per the format of the Rules framed by this

Court and filed eventually on 11.10.2023 after its receipt on

08.11.2023.

10. It is thereafter averred that due to Deepawali and Chhath Puja,

there was vacation from 11.11.2023 to 20.11.2023 and no steps of

filing were taken as the Advocate's Office was completely closed and

the Advocate's clerk was out of station during the Puja vacation.

11. It is only on reopening of the Court on 21st of November 2023

that the memo of appeal was prepared for filing, but due to several

illegible pages which were required to be typed of, which took another

three weeks to obtain the typed copies and thereafter the appeal was

finally filed on 22nd of December 2023 which caused delay of 242

days in filing of the appeal.

12. We have heard learned counsel for the respondents (applicants

herein) and find that apart from the general allegations regarding the

tossing of the file from one desk to the other, there is no cause shown

which could be termed as "sufficient" to condone the delay, rather

frivolous and superfluous grounds have been carved out in the

2025:JHHC:28272-DB

application. The applicants very well knew that the time period for

filing of appeal is only 30 days and even as per the allegations of the

applicants, the process to file the appeal came to be initiated after

nearly three months. That apart, the certified copy of the order came

to be applied only on 11th of October 2023 which goes to indicate that

the applicants were not at all serious to file the appeal.

13. The entire averments only go to indicate that there are no bona

fides of the State which could constitute "sufficient cause" to condone

the delay.

14. As regards condonation of delay by the State, we need to bear

in mind the latest judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of Shivamma (dead) by LRS Vs. Karnataka Housing

Board & Others, Civil Appeal No. 11794 of 2025 decided on 12th of

September 2025, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as

under -

"261. Thus, for the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order of the

High Court deserves to be set aside. Before we proceed to

close this judgment, we deem it appropriate to make it

abundantly clear that administrative lethargy and laxity can

never stand as a sufficient ground for condonation of delay,

and we want to convey an emphatic message to all the High

Courts that delays shall not be condoned on frivolous and

superficial grounds, until a proper case of sufficient cause is

made out, wherein the State-machinery is able to establish

that it acted with bona fides and remained vigilant all

2025:JHHC:28272-DB

throughout. Procedure is a handmaid to justice, as is

famously said. But courts, and more particularly the

constitutional courts, ought not to obviate the procedure for a

litigating State agency, who also equally suffer the bars of

limitation from pursuing litigations due to its own

lackadaisical attitude.

262. The High Courts ought not give a legitimizing effect to such

callous attitude of State authorities or its instrumentalities,

and should remain extra cautious, if the party seeking

condonation of delay is a State-authority. They should not

become surrogates for State laxity and lethargy. The

constitutional courts ought to be cognizant of the apathy and

pangs of a private litigant. Litigants cannot be placed in

situations of perpetual litigations, wherein the fruits of their

decrees or favourable orders are frustrated at later stages.

We are at pains to reiterate this everlasting trend, and put all

the High Courts to notice, not to reopen matters with

inordinate delay, until sufficient cause exists, as by doing so

the courts only add insult to the injury, more particularly in

appeals under Section 100 of the CPC, wherein its

jurisdiction is already limited to questions of law.

263. Limitation periods are prescribed to maintain a sweeping

scope for the lis to attain for finality. More than the

importance of judicial time, what worries us is the plight of a

litigant with limited means, who is to contest against an

2025:JHHC:28272-DB

enormous State, and its elaborate and never-exhausting

paraphernalia. Such litigations deserve to be disposed of at

the very threshold, because, say if a party litigating against

the State, for whatever reason, is unable to contest the

condonation of delay in appeal, unlike the present case, it

reopens the lis for another round of litigation, and leaves

such litigant listless yet again. As courts of conscience, it is

our obligation that we assure that a litigant is not sent from

pillar to post to seek justice.