Bureaucratic delays do not justify condonation of significant delays in filing appeals; diligence is required in legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Roshan, J.

1. This application has been filed by the applicant seeking condonation of delay of 404 days in filing the appeal against the judgment dated 27.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No.5725 of 2017.

2. It is stated in the application for condonation of said period of delay that the respondent came to know about the order dated 27.02.2023 passed in W.P.(S) No.5725 of 2017 on 16.03.2023 and no reason has been assigned for this delay. Thereafter, on 03.04.2023, it has been forwarded to the office of Deputy Secretary. Thereafter, on 25.04.2023 the same has been forwarded to Joint Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, who in turn forwarded the same to the Secretary of the Department on 27.04.2023 for instruction.

3. It has been further stated that on 28.04.2023, the Secretary has directed to get instruction regarding filing appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It has been further stated in the application that the Law Department, Government of Jharkhand returned the file to the Department on 15.06.2023 and opined that “No useful purpose will be served in preferring an appeal”. Thereafter, the file was again forwarded to Deputy Secretary on 26.06.2023, who in turn placed it before the Joint Secretary on 03.07.2023 and the same was put up before the Secretary of the Department on 04.07.2023.

4. Subsequently, on 07.07.2023, the Secretary of Department directed to take opinion from the Advocate General. Thereafter, seeking opinion from Advocate General the same was put up before the Deputy Secretary on 12.10.2023. This huge delay of three months has not been explained by the appellant-State.

5. It has been further stated in the application for condonation of delay that the Deputy Secretary further forwarded it to the Joint Secretary on 16.10.2023. The Department decided to take opinion from Finance Department on 02.11.2023 and accordingly, the file was forwarded to the accounts section on 04.12.2023 for calculation of amount and LPC of the petitioner. After getting the same from the Account Section, it was forwarded to Nodal Officer, (law) of the Law Department.

6. Thereafter, on 27.12.2023, the dismissal order of the petitioner got approval from the Departmental Minister and it was decided on 09.01.2024 to place it before the Chief Secretary and Hon’ble Chief Minister for their approval since the service is related with the First Class Officer. On 11.01.2024, the file was further put up before the Principal Secretary of the Hon’ble Chief Minister and on 16.01.2024, he returned the same for taking opinion from the department of Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha.

After a gap of two months, the Department of Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand returned the file on 11.03.2024 and suggested that since the matter concerned related with huge revenue loss and therefore, opinion of Finance Department is required.

7. Thereafter, the concerned department placed it before the Chief Secretary on 19.03.2024 who directed the Department to get opinion from the Finance Department and again the file was sent to the Finance Department 21.03.2024. and the Finance Department opined that an appeal against order dated 27.02.2023 passed in W.P.(S) No.5725 of 2017 can be filed and sent the file on 04.04.2024 to the appellant-Department. Thereafter, on 08.04.2024 the file was put up before Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department who forwarded the same to the Secretary of the Department and again it was decided to obtain opinion of the learned Advocate General and on 12.04.2004, the file was again sent to the office of the Advocate General for filing the appeal.

Thereafter, the concerned file was given for preparation and the statement of fact was approved by 30.04.2024 and finally, the appeal was filed on 06.05.2024 after a delay of 404 days.

8. Form the facts narrated above, it is clear that though the judgment of the learned Single Judge was