2025:JHHC:18225-DB -1 of 3- L.P.A. No. 315 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI I.A. No. 3402 of 2025 In/And L.P.A. No. 315 of 2025 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi 3. The Chief Engineer, Subernrekha Multi Project, Chandil, P.O. & P.S.- Chandil, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand... ... Appellants Versus 1. Ajit Kumar Deo, son of Late Laxmi Deo, resident of Village Taraghat, P.O. & P.S. Jasidih, District Deoghar, Jharkhand 2. Jaideo Prasad Singh, son of Late Shesha Prasad Singh, resident of Village Jhalpur, P.O. & P.S. Deoghar, District-Deoghar, Jharkhand … ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Appellants: Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II For the Respondents: -------- Reserved on: 02.07.2025 Pronounced on: 08 / 07 /2025 M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.(Oral) 1) The instant interlocutory application is filed by the applicants for condonation of delay of 1965 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal challenging the judgment dt. 22.9.2017 in W.P.(S) No. 1255 of 2013 of the learned Single Judge. 2) In the application filed seeking condonation of delay the applicants contend that they had previously filed L.P.A. No. 624 of 2017 against the judgment of the learned Single Judge with an application for condonation of delay, but withdrew the same on 6.2.2024 for filing of 2025:JHHC:18225-DB -2 of 3- L.P.A. No. 315 of 2025 a review application. Thereafter, they filed C. Rev. No. 67 of 2024 which was also dismissed on 20.9.2024. 3) It is contended in the application by the applicants that after the copy of the judgment in the review application was received on 25.9.2024, it was decided to prefer an LPA against the order dt. 22.9.2017 in W.P.(S) No. 1255 of 2013. 4) Thereafter steps were taken by sending the file to the office of the Additional Secretary of the applicant Department, then to the Advocate General and again to the Department, and ultimately the appeal was filed on 3.3.2025. 5) Having withdrawn the LPA No. 624 of 2017 against the impugned judgment dt.22.9.2017 with liberty to file a Civil Review , the applicants cannot be permitted to file an LPA again against the same judgment of the learned single Judge in the Writ petition. At best, they can challenge in LPA, the order passed in the C. Rev. No. 67 of 2024 if such challenge is permitted by law. 6) The conduct of the applicants in withdrawing the LPA No. 624 of 2017, waiting for the review to be dismissed on 20.9.2024 and then filing the LPA again against the judgment dt. 22.9.2017 cannot be countenanced. The withdrawal of the LPA No. 624 of 2017 estops them from challenging again by LPA the judgment dt. 22.9.2017 passed in the writ petition. 7) In any event, the delay of 1965 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is inordinate and there is no sufficient cause to accept the reason assigned for condoning the said period of delay. 2025:JHHC:18225-DB -3 of 3- L.P.A. No. 315 of 2025 8) Therefore, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal is also dismissed. 9) All pending applications shall stand closed. (M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) A.F.R. Sharda/- c.p.02