2025:JHHC:32844-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 252 of 2023 1. Faguni Devi, W/o Late Bhiku Ganjhu, R/o Village-Gargali, P.O. & P.S.- Mandu, District-Ramgarh 2. Ajay Ganjhu, S/o Late Bhikhu Ganjhu, R/o Village-Gargali, P.O. & P.S.- Mandu, District-Ramgarh ….. Appellants Versus 1. Central Coalfield Limited, through its Director (Personnel), Ranchi 2. The Director, Central Coalfield Limited, Hazaribagh 3. The Project Officer, Central Coalfield Limited, Tapin South Colliery, Hazaribagh ….. Respondents ----- CORAM HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Appellants: Ms. Khushboo Kumari, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Shivam Utkarsh Sahay, Advocate ----- 08/03.11.2025 I.A. No. 622 of 2025: 1. By way of this application, the appellants have sought condonation of 291 days delay that has crept up in filing of the present appeal. The cause for not filing the present appeal within the prescribed period of limitation has been set out in paragraph nos. 5 to 10 of the present interlocutory application, which read as under: “5. That it is stated and submitted that anyhow the kith and kin of the appellant managed to get her a counsel who advised her to file the instant Letters Patent Appeal and subsequently, decision was taken for filing the instant Letters Patent Appeal. 6. That since the appellant is jobless and was fully dependent on her husband for her survival, thus, she was facing difficulties to make arrangements for litigation expenses. 2025:JHHC:32844-DB 2 7. That being a senior citizen the appellant was facing difficulty to arrange the expenses of litigation which the appellant managed to arrange by taking loans from her friends and relatives. 8. That it is stated and submitted that thereafter she handed over the power to her counsel for filing the instant Letters Patent Appeal and the same was drafted by her counsel for filing. 9. That after the above-mentioned steps the appellant was not able to come to court to initiate the filing process and complete the process of affidavit as she had no one who could accompany her to court as she is unaware of the whereabouts at Ranchi. 10. That it is stated and submitted that anyhow appellant's kith and kin managed to take her to court out of their busy schedule and in due process the delay of 291 days occurred and the instant appeal was filed on 02.05.2023.” 2. Apparently, the aforesaid grounds as set out are totally misconceived giving the fact that admittedly there are two appellants in this appeal. One of the appellants, namely, Faguni Devi is stated to be 65 years of age. Therefore, even if it is assumed and presumed that she is illiterate and could not approach this Court on account of her illiteracy, there is no explanation as to why the appellant no. 2, namely, Ajay Ganjhu, who is the son of the appellant no. 1, did not approach the Court within the prescribed period of limitation given the fact that he is a young person of 33 years of age. The entire application is centred around only the appellant no. 1 without there being any mention about the appellant no. 2. Clearly this application is an instance of clever drafting made with 2025:JHHC:32844-DB 3 the sole purpose of trying to condone the delay on one pretext or the other that too without showing any sufficient cause. 3. Since no sufficient cause has been shown by the appellants for not filing the present appeal within the prescribed period of limitation, the present interlocutory application being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. L.P.A. No. 252 of 2023: 4. In view of the order passed in I.A. No. 622 of 2025, the present appeal is consequently dismissed. (TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.) (RAJESH SHANKAR, J) 3rd November, 2025 Satish/Vikas/