Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:21515-DB) p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 369 of 2020 With I.A. No. 6142 of 2020 ----- Manoj Kumar Singh, s/o Late Hemnarayan Singh, resident of E/9/102, TTPS Lalpania, P.O., P.S. and District-Bokaro (Jharkhand) .......... Appellant. -Versus- 1. State of Jharkhand. 2. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi. 3. Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi. 4. The Janta Grih Nirman Sahyog Samiti Ltd., Hatia, Ranchi through the Secretary of the Society, having its Head Office at Quarter No.-B/733/2 HEC, Sector-2, Dhurwa, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S. Hatia, District-Ranchi. 5. Janta Grih Nirman Sahyog Samiti Ltd. through its President Dharmendra Kumar, S/o Shri Baidyanath Singh, resident of Rahul Medical Hall, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Hatia, District-Ranchi. 6. Dharmendra Kumar Singh, S/o Baidyanath Singh, resident of Rahul Medical Hall, Dhurwa, P.O. Jagarnathpur, P.S. Hatia, District-Ranchi. .......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Appellant : Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG- III For the Res. Nos.4&5 : Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh, Advocate ----- Order No. 10 Date: 21.07.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. I.A. No. 6142 of 2020 seeks condonation of a delay of 370 days in instituting the appeal against the judgment and order dated 3rd September, 2019, passed by the learned Single Judge. Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:21515-DB) p. 2 3. The reasons set out in the application are that the impugned order was not communicated to the appellant, who resides in Bokaro. It is stated that after the summer vacation of 2020, when the appellant inquired with his advocate, he was informed that his Writ Petition (C) No. 3324 of 2016 had already been dismissed on 3rd September, 2019. 4. The appellant has further pleaded that he obtained the certified copy on 2nd July, 2020, and has thereafter cited the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the Diwali and Chhath Puja holidays, as reasons for the subsequent delay. 5. This is a case where the appellant is simply attempting to take advantage of the unfortunate COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent Diwali and Chhath Puja holidays. Long before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic or the brief holiday period, the limitation period for instituting the appeal had already expired. 6. Most of the statements made in the application are entirely unverifiable. There is no evidence whatsoever regarding the alleged non-communication of the impugned order. Consequently, based on the reasons set out in the application, no sufficient cause for condoning the delay has been shown. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others, reported in (2013) 12 SCC 649, has held that it is relevant to consider the surrounding circumstances and the antecedent conduct of an applicant for deciding the issue of condonation of delay. Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:21515-DB) p. 3 8. In the present case, the appellant challenges the termination of his membership and the cancellation of the allotment of a plot, both of which were effected on 7th July, 2007, and 9th August, 2007. The appellant’s contention was that this termination/cancellation was void ab initio. Nevertheless, a legal notice alleging such voidness was issued to the 4th respondent- Society only on 19th April, 2012, i.e. after 5 years. 9. Thereafter, proceedings were instituted before the Registrar, registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 09 of 2015, i.e., after about 8 years, and were dismissed on 5th April, 2016. From these facts, it is apparent that although the order of termination/cancellation was issued in 2007, it was only after a delay of eight years, i.e., in 2015, that the appellant initiated proceedings challenging the same before the Registrar / Additional / Joint Registrar of Co- operative Societies. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that, following the termination/cancellation, the land previously allotted to the appellant was re-allotted to the 6th respondent. 11. Accordingly, we are of the view that it would be unduly harsh to require the 6th respondent to defend an allotment made in his favour as far back as 2007, at this distance of time. Condoning the delay, when, in fact, no sufficient cause has been shown, would, therefore, operate harshly against the respondents in this matter. 12. On an earlier occasion, this Court had inquired from the learned counsel for the 4th respondent-Society whether the Society would Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:21515-DB) p. 4 refund the sum of Rs. 2,000/- deposited by the appellant at the time of allotment of the plot, along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum. 13. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent, on instructions, submits that, if so directed, the 4th respondent-Society will refund the sum of Rs. 2,000/-, together with interest at 7% per annum from the date of institution of Miscellaneous Case No. 09 of 2015 until actual payment, within two months of today. 14. The above statement is accepted. The 4th respondent-Society is directed to act in accordance with the same. 15. Consequently, I.A. No. 6142 of 2020 is dismissed. As a result, the accompanying appeal does not survive and stands dismissed. 16. All other pending I.A.s in the appeal shall also stand disposed of as infructuous. No costs. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 21st July, 2026 Sanjay/Rohit Uploaded on 28.07.2026