-1 of 6- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 634 of 2024 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Prison & Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi, Ranchi. 3. Inspector General (Prison) Government of Jharkhand, officiating at Namkum, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District- Ranchi. 4. Principal Probation Officer, Home Prison Department, Government of Jharkhand, officiating at Namkum, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District- Ranchi. …… Appellants/Respondents No. 1 to 4. Versus 1. Mangra Oraon, Son of Late Kuiya Oraon, aged 59 years resident of Ginjo Thakur Gaon (Chapatoli), P.O. Ginjo Thakur Gaon, P.S. Burmu, District- Ranchi, Presently residing at Sadabahar Chowk, Namkum, P.O. & P.S.- Namkum, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. .…. Respondent/Petitioner 2. State of Bihar, through Department of Home, Govt. of Bihar, P.O. & P.S. New Secretariat, Patna, Bihar. .…. Respondent/Respondent --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ------- For the Appellants: Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, A.C. to S.C-IV For the State of Bihar: Mr. S.P. Roy, G.A. (Bihar) --------- Reserved on:16.01.2025 Pronounced on: 29 . 1 .2025 M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.(Oral) I.A. No. 10188 of 2024 in L.P.A. No. 634 of 2024 1. This application is filed by the applicants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone delay of 646 days in filing the appeal challenging judgment dt. 22.12.2022 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2857 of 2021 by the learned Single Judge. 2. In the application filed seeking condonation of delay, it is stated that though the impugned order was passed on 22.12.2022 till the respondent submitted his representation on 28.03.2023 seeking its -2 of 6- implementation, nothing was done, and that the representation made by the respondent on 28.03.2023 was then forwarded to the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand on 06.07.2023. 3. There is no explanation for not taking any action for the period from 28.03.2023 to 06.07.2023. 4. Five months later on 05.01.2024 , the Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand is said to have written a letter to the Inspector General (Prison), Ranchi to provide the original file for taking legal opinion and that the file was submitted and was put up for seeking legal opinion on 16.01.2024. 5. Again, no explanation if forthcoming for inaction between 06.07.2023 to 05.01.2024. 6. It is further stated that legal opinion was obtained on 23.01.2024 but file was returned on 25.01.2024 and then sent to the office of the learned Advocate General on 13.02.2024 for preparing grounds of appeal. According to the applicants, after finalization of grounds, statement of facts for filing L.P.A. was prepared, and on 13.06.2024 it was sent to the concerned Standing Counsel for drafting the memo of appeal. 7. It is stated that certified copy of the impugned judgment was also not obtained by that time and certified copy was applied and after obtaining it, the appeal was filed on 14.08.2024. 8. Between 23.01.2024 to 14.08.2024 i.e., period of 7 months again no urgency was shown by the applicants for taking steps to expeditiously file the appeal. -3 of 6- 9. The failure to apply for certified copy of the impugned judgment which had been rendered on 22.12.2022 till 13.06.2024 is also not explained. 10. Thus, at every stage there appears to be negligence on the part of the applicants in taking steps to file the appeal within the time prescribed by law. 11. 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-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 1 (2012) 3 SCC 563 -4 of 6- 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) 12. These observations equally apply to the instant case where the applicants have acted in a similar manner as in the said case. 13. 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. 2 (2022) 3 SCC 159 3 (2022) 2 SCC 327 -5 of 6- 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. 14. 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 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 preferred as against the technical considerations. It was reiterated that 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. 4 (2021) 11 SCC 557 5 (2022) 9 SCC 263 6 (2022) 9 SCC 266 7 2024 INSC 262: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 489 -6 of 6- 15. This was also reiterated in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramkumar Choudhary8. 16. 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 646 days in filing the appeal. 17. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal is also dismissed. 18. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) VK 8 Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 48636 of 2024 dt. 29.11.2024