Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director and anr. – Appellants
Versus
Jitendra Kumar Sah – Respondent
L.P.A. No. 151 of 2023
Decided On : 24-04-2024
DELAY - CONDONATION OF DELAY - Section 5 of the Limitation Act - The court discussed the principles surrounding the condonation of delay, emphasizing that the law of limitation is strict and must be adhered to unless a sufficient cause is demonstrated. The court highlighted that procedural delays, lack of diligence, and the absence of bona fides are critical factors in determining whether to condone a delay. The court referenced several precedents, including Brijesh Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana, which established that the law of limitation serves public policy and should not be ignored. Ultimately, the court found that the appellants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the 309-day delay, leading to the dismissal of the application for condonation.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed an intra-court appeal against a single judge's order directing them to appoint the respondent within three weeks. The appeal was filed after a delay of 309 days, prompting the appellants to seek condonation of this delay, citing procedural reasons and the need for approvals.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the explanation provided for the delay was insufficient. It noted that the appellants had not acted with due diligence and that the delay was not justifiable under the principles established by previous judgments. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the law of limitation and the need for a bona fide motive in seeking condonation.
Issues: Whether the delay of 309 days in filing the appeal could be condoned based on the reasons provided by the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the law of limitation is strict and must be applied rigorously. It emphasized that a party seeking condonation of delay must demonstrate a sufficient cause and that procedural delays or bureaucratic inefficiencies do not constitute sufficient grounds for condonation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the delay condonation application and consequently dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal.
JUDGMENT :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
1. The instant intra-court appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 16.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No.1607 of 2018, whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants to offer appointment to the respondent-writ petitioner within a period of three weeks with all consequential benefits.
I.A. No. 7288 of 2023
2. The instant appeal is barred by inordinate delay of 309 days, therefore, an application for condoning the aforesaid delay has been filed being I.A. No. 7288 of 2023.
3. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the instant intra-court appeal has been filed after inordinate delay of 309 days, deems it fit and proper, to first consider the delay condonation application before going into the legality and propriety of the impugned order on merit.
4. The ground for condonation of delay has been taken, as per the pleading made in the instant interlocutory application that after receiving the information regarding the impugned order, the Department immediately acted upon and the file was put up before the higher authority for taking appropriate decision which was accordingly taken to prefer the instant appeal. Thereafter, the file was sent to the counsel for the appellants for drafting appeal. The counsel sought for some more necessary documents for filing the instant appeal which took some more time. The appeal was drafted thereafter and it was sent for approval of the higher authorities of the appellants. After getting the approval of the higher authorities through proper channel, the instant appeal has been filed, but in the process thereof, a delay of 309 days has occurred in preferring the instant appeal.
5. The delay, according to the appellants, is not intentional rather on account of procedural delay and in taking final decision, some extra time has been consumed by the appellants. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has prayed to condone the delay and has submitted that the reason assigned in the instant interlocutory application is sufficient to condone the delay.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on delay condonation application and before considering the same, this Court deems it fit and proper to refer certain legal proposition as has been propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court with respect to approach of the Court in condoning the inordinate delay.
7. There is no dispute about the fact that generally the lis is not to be rejected on the technical ground of limitation but certainly if the filing of appeal suffers from inordinate delay, then it is the duty of the Court to consider the application to condone the delay before entering into the merit of the lis.
8. It requires to refer herein that the law of limitation is enshrined in the legal maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties, rather the idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time, as has been held in the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Brijesh Kumar & Ors. Vrs. State of Haryana & Ors., (2014) 11 SCC 351.
9. The Privy Council in General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corpn. Ltd. v. Janmahomed Abdul Rahim, (1939-40) 67 IA 416, relied upon the writings of Mr. Mitra in Tagore Law Lecturers, 1932, wherein, it has been said that:
10. In P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, (1997) 7
The law of limitation is fundamental and must be strictly adhered to; mere procedural delays or bureaucratic inefficiencies do not justify the condonation of inordinate delays in filing appeals.
The law of limitation must be strictly adhered to, and the burden of proving sufficient cause for delay lies with the party seeking condonation. Procedural delays and lack of diligence are insufficie....
The principle that the law of limitation must be strictly adhered to, and that a party seeking condonation of delay must provide a satisfactory and bona fide explanation for the delay, is fundamental....
The court emphasized that delay in filing appeals must be condoned only when sufficient cause is shown, with strict adherence to the law of limitation.
The principle that the law of limitation must be strictly adhered to, and that a party seeking condonation of delay must provide a satisfactory explanation that demonstrates diligence and bona fides.
The law of limitation must be applied strictly, and delay in filing appeals can only be condoned on sufficient cause, which was not established in this case.
The court emphasized that delay in filing appeals must be strictly justified, and lack of bona fides or negligence can prevent condonation of delay.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
