2026:JHHC:17931 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 1045 of 2024 ------- 1. The State of Jharkhand represented through the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, at and P.O. & P.S. Medninagar, District Palamau. 2. The Executive Engineer, Water Ways Division at Medininagar and P.O. Medninagar, P.S. Medininagar, District Palamau .... Petitioner(s). Versus Bishram Dubey, Son of Late Ram Lagan Dubey, Proprietor of Jai Bhawani Construction), Resident of Village Sudna, P.O. & P.S. Medinagar, Dist. Palamau. … Opposite Party. ------- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harsh Preet Singh, Advocate For the Opp. Party : ------ 06/ 19.06.2026: I.A. No.12802 of 2024 1. This Interlocutory Application has been filed for condonation of delay of 1091 days in filing this Civil Miscellaneous Petition for restoration of S.A. No.316 of 2016. 2. The Second Appeal filed by the petitioner, was dismissed as the defects were not removed. In Second Appeal, vide order dated 06.08.2019, this Court passed the following order for removing the defects: “04/06.08.2019 Four weeks’ time, as prayed for, is allowed to remove all the defects, failing which, this appeal shall stand rejected without any further reference to a Bench.” 3. The Second Appeal was filed on 21.06.2016 and till 2019 the defects were not removed. It was listed under the heading “For Orders with Defects” for removal of the defects on 06.08.2019 when four weeks’ peremptory time was granted to remove the defects and as the defects were not removed within the said time, S.A. No.316 of 2016 stood dismissed on 03.09.2019 due to non-compliance of the order dated 06.08.2019. Thereafter, no steps were taken for restoration, rather only on 21.09.2024 this restoration application was filed i.e. after the delay of 1091 days. 4. After going through the records, I find that there is no plausible reason mentioned in this Interlocutory Application to condone the delay. For about 1091 days, the petitioners slept over the matter and the reason given in the Interlocutory Application is absolutely unbelievable. It is necessary to quote paragraphs 7 and 8 of the instant Interlocutory Applications, which reads as under: “7. That it is humbly stated that the Appellant has not informed about that order dated 06.08.2019 and the Counsel for the appellant also refused to receive the memo of information issued by the office. 8. That it is humbly stated that therefore the Appellant has not no knowledge about the order passed by the Hon’ble Court and also no step appears to have taken by the Counsel, therefore no restoration application could be filed earlier by the Appellant.” 5. From paragraphs 7 and 8 of this Interlocutory Application, I get an impression that instead of dealing with the reasons of delay, the petitioners simply blamed the counsel for such delay. What efforts the petitioners have taken, have not been dealt with. For whole 1091 days, they slept over the matter and now they reached this Court stating unbelievable reasons for condoning the delay. 6. In the matter where the State came before this Court for condonation of delay the criteria of condoning the delay is somewhat same. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) v. Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd.” reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 233 at paragraph No.58 has held as under: “58. Likewise, merely because the government is involved, a different yardstick for condonation of delay cannot be laid down. This was felicitously stated in Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd., (2012) 3 SCC 563 [“Postmaster General”], as follows: “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 -2- 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. 29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.” 7. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the facts of this case and as there is no sufficient explanation given by the State for condoning the delay of 1091 days, I.A. No.12802 of 2024 is dismissed. 8. Consequently, C.M.P. No.1045 of 2024 is also dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 19th June, 2026 Madhav/- Uploaded on:23/06/2026 -3-