-1 of 5- L.P.A. No. 732 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 732 of 2023 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, Commissionery Office, P.O. & P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand, PIN 834001 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Collectoriate Building, P.O. & P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand, PIN 834001 4. The Circle Officer, Nagri Anchal, P.O. Nagri, P.S. Pundag O.P., District-Ranchi, Jharkhand .. ... ... Appellants Versus 1. Radhika Devi w/o Late Rajeshwar Prasad Singh, 2. Rajeev Kumar son of Late Rajeshwar Prasad Singh, 3. Sanjeev Kumar son of Late Rajeshwar Prasad Singh, 4. Chiranjeev Kumar son of Late Rajeshwar Prasad Singh, all resident of Q. No. B/2660, Sector-2, Site-5, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand-834004 … ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Appellants : Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, AC to AAG IV For the Respondents: -------- Reserved on: 27.01.2025 Pronounced on: 11 /02/2025 M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.(Oral) Re: I.A. No. 81 of 2025 in LPA No. 732 of 2023 1) This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 by the applicants to condone the delay of 603 days in filing this appeal, challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dt. 18.4.2022 passed in W.P. (C) No. 4677 of 2014. 2) In the application filed for seeking condonation of delay, it is stated that the delay was caused due to procedural formalities and there was no willful omission on the part of the applicants. -2 of 5- L.P.A. No. 732 of 2023 3) It is stated that though the judgment of the learned Single Judge was pronounced on 18.4.2022, it was forwarded by the Circle Officer, Nagri only on 18.12.2023 to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi through the Additional Collector for approval of the grounds of appeal and statement of facts; that it was then forwarded to Divisional Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi who then forwarded it to the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration on 19.12.2023; and thereafter the appeal was filed through the Law Officer on 23.12.2023. 4) We are unable to understand why no step to file the appeal was initiated after the order of the learned Single Judge passed on 18.4.2022 and why the process of taking steps to file the appeal commenced on 18.12.2023, one year thereafter. It appears that the applicants though aware that they should have filed the appeal within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment, have been negligent in taking steps to file the appeal. We are not satisfied with the explanation offered by the applicants for filing the appeal with delay 5) 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 (2012) 3 SCC 563 -3 of 5- L.P.A. No. 732 of 2023 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 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 -4 of 5- L.P.A. No. 732 of 2023 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) 6) 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. 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. 7) 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 2 (2022) 3 SCC 159 3 (2022) 2 SCC 327 4 (2021) 11 SCC 557 5 (2022) 9 SCC 263 6 (2022) 9 SCC 266 7 2024 INSC 262: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 489 -5 of 5- L.P.A. No. 732 of 2023 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 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. 8) This was also reiterated in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramkumar Choudhary8. 9) Having regard to the above decisions of the Supreme Court and the reasons given above , in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has not been shown by the applicants for condonation of delay of 603 days in filing the appeal. 10) Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal is also dismissed. 11) Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) N.A.F.R. Sharda/- 8 Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 48636 of 2024 dt. 29.11.2024