State of Jharkhand vs Pramod Kumar Jha

Deepak Roshan, J.

This application has been filed by the applicant seeking condonation of delay of 229 days in filing the connected appeal against the judgment dated 21.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No.1967 of 2020.

It is stated in the application for condonation of the said period of delay that after disposal of the writ application on 21.12.2023, the file was forwarded to the concerned department. The said file was received by the concerned department on 21.02.2024. Thereafter, the file was sent to the Deputy Commissioner and the Department of Animal Husbandry and Cooperative on 22.02.2024.

It has been further stated that on 18.03.2024, the District Administration again sought for necessary action with respect to the order of the High Court from the Department of Animal Husbandry. Thereafter, vide letter No.1904 dated 22.05.2024, the instruction from the concerned department was received by the District Administration to prefer an appeal and thereafter, the file was forwarded to Deputy Development Commissioner on 11.06.2024 for necessary permission to prefer the appeal and on 12.06.2024 the approval was granted.

In crux, it has been stated and submitted in this application that the file was examined at various levels and then forwarded to the Law Officer to prepare the grounds of appeal against the order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, the concerned file was put up before the Deputy Commissioner and Parent Department on 30.07.2024.

In para 15, it has been stated that in the meantime, the concerned Law Officer resigned from her post on 31.07.2024 and accordingly, the file was sent to the Office of Learned Advocate General to assign another Law Officer to do the needful and finally after a delay of 229 days, the appeal was filed on 05.09.2024.

From the facts narrated above, it is clear that though the judgment of the learned Single Judge was pronounced on 21.12.2023, but the concerned file was not moved by the applicant till 21.02.2024 and no reason has been assigned, why two months were taken by the concerned Department to send the file to the Deputy Commissioner and the Department of Animal Husbandry that is till 22.02.2024.

It also appears that the file kept on moving from 21.02.2024 to 14.08.2024 from table to table and from Officer to Officer. It is not as if the applicant was not aware about the period for filing letters patent appeal, yet a delay of 229 days occurred in filing the appeal from the date of the order.

It thus appears that the applicant has adopted a very lethargic attitude in the matter of filing the Letters Patent Appeal and has been negligent in that regard.

In Postmaster General and others Vs. Living Media India Limited and another reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563 , the Hon’ble 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.

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.

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.

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

These observations equally apply to the instant case where the applicant has acted in a similar manner as in the said case.

The aforesaid judgment has been followed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of decisions.

Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that no sufficient cause has been shown by the applicant for condoning the said period of delay in filing the appeal; accordingly, this application is dismissed.

Consequently, the instant L.P.A. is also dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, shall also stand closed.