( 2026:JHHC:20556-DB ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 1182 of 2023 With I.A. No. 9469 of 2023 1. State of Jharkhand, through Secretary, Excise Department, Government of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 2. Commissioner Excise, Jharkhand Town Administration Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi 3. Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi near Kutchery Chowk, P.O. G.P.O, P.S Kotwali, District Ranchi 4. Assistant Commissioner of Excise, Ranchi, Kutchery Chowk, P.O. G.P.O, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi. ... ... Appellants / Petitioners Versus Spencer Distilleries and Breweries (Pvt.) Ltd., A Pvt. Ltd. Company with Regd. Office at Heenco, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District – Ranchi (Jharkhand) through Director M/s Manisha Sahay, Resident of Sushila Niwas, at Hinoo, P.O. & P.S. – Doranda, District Ranchi. … ... Respondents /Opp. Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners: Mr Ratnesh Kumar, SC(L&C)-I ----- 04 /Dated: 10.07.2026 1. I.A. No. 9469 of 2023 seeks condonation of delay of 37 days in filing this C.M.P. 2. Considering the cause shown, we condone the delay and dispose of this I.A. 3. Mr Ratnesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner-State in this CMP, submits that there is sufficient cause for restoration of L.P.A. No. 512 of 2022, which was dismissed for non-prosecution. He points out that a Government Advocate had resigned from the Government panel in the 2nd week of February 2023. There was a communication gap which resulted and, therefore, the matter could not be attended to. He pointed out that the main defect, which was not attended to, was filing of an I.A., seeking condonation of delay of 263 days along with the appeal memo. He submits that the State has a very good case on the merits and, therefore, the L.P.A. could be restored, an opportunity be ( 2026:JHHC:20556-DB ) 2 granted to file an I.A. seeking condonation of delay of 263 days, and, upon such condonation, the matter should be heard on the merits. 4. We have considered Mr Ratnesh Kumar’s submissions, as also perused the reasons set out in the CMP. However, we are not persuaded to order the restoration of L.P.A. No. 512 of 2022, for reasons which we shall briefly indicate hereinafter. 5. Firstly, the Letters Patent Appeal was filed on 20th of October 2012 after a delay of 263 days. Despite such delay, no I.A. was filed for condonation. By 22nd October, 2022, the Advocate, who was assigned with this matter and filed the memo of appeal, was very much on the Government panel and in control of the matter. He is stated to have resigned only in the 2nd week of February 2023. 6. Secondly, there is no explanation for why the I.A. seeking condonation of delay was never filed. This is a serious matter, as we note that in several cases the State files appeals beyond the prescribed limitation period and then lets the matter languish in the Registry pending clearance of office objections. In the meantime, the State does not comply with the directions contained in the order appealed against, thereby forcing the successful writ petitioner to institute a contempt petition. 7. In the contempt, the State invariably contends that since its appeal is pending, the action in the contempt petition should be deferred or the hearing on the contempt petition simply adjourned. 8. Therefore, this is not a simple matter in which, on account of some inadvertence, the I.A. seeking condonation of delay remained to be filed. Admittedly, on 22nd October 2022, there was no difficulty with the advocate ( 2026:JHHC:20556-DB ) 3 handling this matter. This is also not a case of marginal delay, but one in which the appeal was sought to be filed after a delay of 263 days. 9. As if the above were not sufficient, there are records of the defects, including the defect for non-filing of an I.A. seeking condonation, which was notified to the appellants. Several opportunities were afforded to clear the defects. Despite such notification for almost ten months, no steps were taken to clear the defects/objections, including filing an I.A. seeking condonation of delay. 10. In the above circumstances, the Coordinate Bench was left with no alternative but to dismiss the L.P.A. for want of prosecution. 11. The reasons set out in the CMP for the advocate entrusted with the matter resigning have no nexus with the non-filing of the I.A. for condonation of delay between 22nd October 2022 and February 2023. The CMP states that, on the previous advocate's resignation, the file was allotted to the Standing Counsel. However, no details or dates have been provided. 12. For vague reasons, the restoration is sought. Even though this CMP was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period, we have condoned the 37-day delay. 13. A simple statement about the communication gap is hardly sufficient to reopen the matter at this stage. The sword of Damocles cannot be kept hanging over the opposite party, which had succeeded before the learned Single Judge. 14. Mr Ratnesh Kumar submitted that the learned Single Judge’s order has now been complied with (without prejudice) in the contempt proceedings which the opposite party was compelled to file in this matter. This suggests that even after the dismissal of the L.P.A. for want of prosecution, the State ( 2026:JHHC:20556-DB ) 4 was not sufficiently gracious to comply immediately with the learned Single Judge’s order, without prejudice to its rights and contentions. 15. Thus, it appears that the State is only interested in keeping such matter pending and then, pleading the pendency as an excuse for non-compliance with the order appealed against. 16. On the cumulative consideration of all the above facts and circumstances, we dismiss this CMP without any order for costs. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) July 10, 2026 Ranjeet / R.Kr. NAFR Uploaded on