Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 31964 (JHR)

THE DEPUTY SECRETARY DEPTT OF PERSONNEL ADMN REFORMS AND RAJBHASHA v. BRAJ SHANKAR PRASAD SINHA

LPA/749/2023 · 2025-06-10

Rajesh Shankar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:JHHC:14917-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI I.A. No. 11756 of 2023 In/And L.P.A. No. 749 of 2023 1. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Project Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi 2. The State of Jharkhand Through The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 3. The Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, P.O.- GPO, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, P.O.-GPO, P.S.- Kotwali, District-Ranchi ... ... Appellants Versus 1. Braj Shankar Prasad Sinha, son of Late C.P. Sinha, resident of House No. NY-103, New Yarpur, Patna, P.O.-Patna GPO, P.S.- Gardanibagh, District-Patna ( Bihar) 2. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, Old Secretariat, P.O. & P.S.-Sachivalaya, District-Patna ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Appellants: Mr. Manish Mishra, G.P.-V For the Respondents: Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate --------- 05/Dated: 10.06.2025 1. The instant interlocutory application is filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 265 days in filing this appeal challenging the judgment dt. 02.03.2023 of the learned single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 5001 of 2015. 2. In the application filed seeking condonation of delay, it is contended that detailed consultations were held by different functionaries of the department and also with the concerned counsel with respect to every aspect of the impugned judgment 2025:JHHC:14917-DB and thereafter a decision was taken to file the Letters Patent Appeal and it was thus filed with a delay of 265 days. 3. Admittedly, Letters Patent Appeal is to be filed within 30 days from the date of the judgment of the learned single Judge in a writ petition and undoubtedly the applicants were aware of the said period of limitation. Therefore, it was necessary on the part of the applicants to ensure that whatever processes are followed for taking a decision to file a Letters Patent Appeal, they should be completed within the said period or within a short period thereafter. The applicants cannot be permitted to file the appeal as and when they choose to do so ignoring the period of limitation. 4. We are satisfied in the instant case that no sufficient cause has been shown by the applicants for condoning the inordinate period of delay of 265 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. 5. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed, consequently, appeal is dismissed. 6. All pending application shall stand closed. (M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Sharda/MM/ Cp.02