2026:JHHC:3153-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A No. 303 of 2025 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Water Resource Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Nepal House, P.O and P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi 3. The Deputy Commissioner Medininagar, P.O & PS Medininagar, District-Medininagar 4. The Chief Engineer, Water Resource Department, Medininagar, P.O & P.S. Medininagar, District- medininagar 5. The Special Land Acquisiton Officer, North Koyal Project, Medininagar P.O & P.S. Medininagar, District- Medininagar .... Appellant(s) Versus 1. Nawal Kishore Singh, aged aobut 65 years, S/o. Late Sita Ram Singh, Resident of Village+P.O.-Ghongsa, P.S. Halsi, District-Lakhisaray at present R/o. Khariya Basti, Shankosai, Near Welfare Tower, P.O-MGM, P.S.-Mango, District East Singhbhum (Jamshedpur) 2.The Office of Accountant General, Jharkhand, P.O and P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi .. Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN -- For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhijit Anand, AC to AAG-II For the Respondent(s) : -- 5/05.02.2026 I.A. No. 9424 of 2024 1. Heard Mr. Abhijit Anand for the applicants. 2. This is an application seeking condonation of a 237- day delay in instituting a Letters Patent Appeal against the learned Single Judge’s order dated 22.02.2024 to the extent it imposes costs of Rs. 25,000 upon the appellants. 3. The accompanying appeal solely contests these costs, which were imposed due to a delay in the payment of pensions to the respondents. However, even if this circumstance is excluded from consideration, we note that the 237-day delay remains unexplained. 2026:JHHC:3153-DB 2 4. The explanation offered does not constitute "sufficient cause." The I.A. (Interlocutory Application) and the accompanying affidavit were bereft of any proper explanation; therefore, an opportunity was granted to file a supplementary affidavit. 5. We have perused the supplementary affidavit filed on 05.01.2026. In this affidavit, the appellants merely argue that there was no delay on their part in paying the pension to the respondents and, therefore, the costs of Rs. 25,000 should not have been imposed. This is an argument on merits and does not explain the delay. 6. A supplementary affidavit was directed to be filed because no sufficient cause was shown in the original I.A. or its accompanying affidavit. 7. Despite being granted a further opportunity, the supplementary affidavit still fails to show sufficient cause. Accordingly, we dismiss the I.A. Consequently, the accompanying appeal is also dismissed. No costs. 8. I.A No. 9425 of 2024 seeking a stay will not survive and is disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) 5th February, 2026 Jk/Amit Uploaded on 16/02/2026