2025:JHHC:17842-DB -1 of 6- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI I.A. No. 4324 of 2025 in/and L.P.A No. 235 of 2025 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Science & Technology, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. …… Respondents/Appellants Versus Dr. (Prof.) Arun Kumar, s/o Ramchandra Prasad Sinha, resident of Ranibagan, Bariatu, P.O. Bariatu, P.S. Bariatu, District Ranchi. …. Petitioner/Respondent --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Appellants: Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, AC to AAG-III --------- Reserved on: 30.06.2025 Pronounced on: 4 .07.2025 Per M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. 1. This application is filed by the appellants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 767 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal challenging judgment dt. 22.11.2022 passed in W.P.(S) No. 800 of 2009 of the learned Single Judge. 2. In the application filed seeking condonation of delay, it is stated in that the judgment of the learned Single Judge was pronounced on 22.11.2022, and since financial issues were involved in the matter, the file was placed before the Finance Department for seeking its opinion in the matter; the Finance Department gave opinion to place the file before the Law Department for its advice; then advice of the Law Department was obtained, and the Law Department advised that no appeal having been filed by then against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, it has to be complied with. 2025:JHHC:17842-DB -2 of 6- 3. It is stated that then the file was again sent to the Finance Department for consent and as per advice of the Finance Department, on the issue of pay scale of the Director, it was advised to take action as per rules. 4. Thereafter, certain contentions on the merits of the case have been raised in Para 8 to 11 of the application, and then it is stated that the file was again endorsed to the Finance Department for reconsideration of its advice, but the Finance Department did not reconsider the same. Thereafter, decision was taken to file the Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment dt. 22.11.2022 of the learned Single Judge and thus, delay of 767 days occurred. 5. We may point out that though the judgment of the learned Single Judge was pronounced on 22.11.2022, the Letters Patent Appeal was filed on 27.01.2025. 6. Also the certified copy of the judgment of the learned Single Judge was applied on 27.01.2025 and it was obtained on 31.01.2025. No explanation is offered as to why application for issuance of certified copy of the judgment of the learned Single Judge was not made for more than two years. 7. The various dates on which the file was placed before different Departments are not mentioned in the application seeking condonation of delay. 8. The applicants are undoubtedly aware that the Letters Patent Appeal is to be filed within 30 days from the date of judgment of the learned Single Judge, but there was no sense of urgency in the decision 2025:JHHC:17842-DB -3 of 6- making process, and the file was leisurely moved from table to table, from department to department and from officer to officer. 9. This sort of conduct has been depreciated by the Supreme Court in several cases. 10. 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 day one the Department or the person/persons concerned have not 1 (2012) 3 SCC 563 2025:JHHC:17842-DB -4 of 6- 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) 11. These observations equally apply to the instant case where the applicants have acted in a similar manner as in the said case. 12. 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 2025:JHHC:17842-DB -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. 13. 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 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 2025:JHHC:17842-DB -6 of 6- 14. This was also reiterated in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramkumar Choudhary8. 15. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the applicants have been negligent in taking steps to file the Letters Patent Appeal and they have not shown sufficient cause for condoning the same. 16. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal is also dismissed. 17. Pending Interlocutory Application shall stand closed. (M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) VK 8 Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 48636 of 2024 dt. 29.11.2024