-1 of 6- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 744 of 2023 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Jharkhand Ranchi, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Ranchi. 3. The Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Ranchi. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Sahebganj Circle, P.O. & P.S.-Sahebganj, Sahebganj.... Appellants Versus Deo Narayan Singh, Son of Late Ra Bahadur Singh, Resident of Mohalla-Purandaha, P.O. & P.S. Deoghar, District-Deoghar (Jharkhand). ... Respondent --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Appellants : Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr.S.C. II --------- C.A.V. On: 05.03.2025 Pronounced On: 27.3.2025 M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.(Oral) I.A. No. 11751 of 2023 in/and L.P.A. No. 744 of 2023 This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone delay of 217 days in filing this Appeal challenging the judgment dt 20.04.2023 in W.P.(S) No. 4454 of 2022 of the learned Single Judge. 2. In the application filed seeking condonation of delay, it is contended that the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court was communicated on 26.06.2023 to the applicants-department and the file was then put up before the Secretary, Commercial Tax Department of the Government of Jharkhand on 12.07.2023. 3. It is stated that the file was then forwarded by the office of the Secretary to the applicant/department and through a noting dt. 19.07.2023, -2 of 6- it was put up for approval. Thereafter, a decision was taken to file appeal against the original judgment of the learned Single Judge. 4. It is stated that thereafter grounds of appeal were drafted and matter was put up before the Advocate General who approved the file for filing of appeal and handed it over to a conducting lawyer to prepare a memo of appeal. 5. It is stated that thereafter the memo of appeal was drafted and sent to the department for approval and it was then filed on 23.12.2023 with a delay of 217 days. 6. It is stated that the delay was on account of procedural technicalities and was not deliberate and because the applicants were Government functionaries, they had several layers of decision making which consumed much time. 7. We may point out that the judgment of the learned Single Judge was pronounced on 20.04.2023 in the presence of the counsel for the applicants- department. Yet, the application for certified copy thereof was made only on 13.12.2023 by the applicants almost eight months later. 8. Be that as it may, if the order of the High Court was communicated on 26.06.2023, at least from the date of such communication, the applicants should have taken steps quickly to file the L.P.A. because they were aware that such L.P.A. is to be filed within 30 days of the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 9. However, they showed no sense of urgency and after an inordinate delay of 217 days, filed the appeal. -3 of 6- 10. We are, therefore, satisfied that in the facts and circumstances, the applicants have not shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the L.P.A. 11. We are also surprised that the initially appeal was filed by the applicants beyond the period of limitation without even filing an application for condonation of delay, though the law officers of the Government would be fully aware that such an application is warranted, if the appeal is not filed within time. 12. Also the reading of the application for condonation of delay indicates that at every stage, the respondents had not taken steps to file the appeal with the requisite expedition though they are fully aware that the time for filing an appeal is only 30 days. The practice of the file being moved from table to table and from officer to officer has been criticised by the Supreme Court in several decisions. 13. 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 1 (2012) 3 SCC 563 -4 of 6- 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 notevinced 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) -5 of 6- 14. These observations equally apply to the instant case where the applicants have acted in a similar manner as in the said case. 15. 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. 16. 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, 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 -6 of 6- 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. 17. By allowing multiple people to deal with the question as to whether or not the judgment of the learned Single Judge is to be challenged, and without speeding up the process within the Department, it is not open to the applicants to file the appeal with inordinate delay and seek condonation of the same. 18. 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 217 days in filing the appeal. 19. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal is also dismissed. 20. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) APK