IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J., Deepak Roshan
State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary – Appellant
Versus
Rajendra Prasad, son of Late Lakhan Rajak – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.
I.A. No. 10362 of 2024 in/and L.P.A. No. 606 of 2024
This application is filed under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963 to condone delay of 260 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal challenging the judgment dt. 04.12.2023 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5022 of 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge.
2. In the application filed seeking condonation of delay, it is stated that the respondent had submitted his appeal through Governor Secretariat enclosing copy of the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
3. Thereafter, the file was placed before competent authority, who directed to proceed with Letters Patent Appeal.
4. According to the application, the grounds of appeal were drafted by the department and the file was placed before competent authority for approval on 22.07.2024. Thereafter, Advocate General’s opinion was secured on 25.07.2024, approval on appeal was granted on 02.08.2024 and the appeal was filed on 19.09.2024.
5. We have noticed that the appeal has been preferred enclosing a certified copy of the judgment of the learned Single Judge pronounced on 04.12.2023 but the application for certified copy of the same had been filed on 30.08.20
Postmaster General and others Vs. Living Media India Limited and another
Commissioner of Customs Chennai vs. M/s Volex Interconnect (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Pr. Commissioner Central Excise Delhi-1 vs. Design Dialogues India Pvt. Ltd.
Union of India vs. Central Tibetan Schools Administration & Others
Union of India &Others vs. Vishnu Aroma Pouching Private Limited and another
State of Uttar Pradesh & Others vs. Sabha Narain & others
Union of India & Anr. Vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through his LR
The court emphasized that government entities must demonstrate diligence in adhering to the statutory limit for appeal filing and cannot claim special treatment in delay situations without sufficient....
Government departments must adhere to limitation periods; bureaucratic delays do not justify condonation of significant delays in legal proceedings.
Delay in filing an appeal may not be condoned without a sufficient cause shown, emphasizing the importance of diligence and adherence to limitation periods in judicial proceedings.
The court ruled that bureaucratic delays do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing appeals, emphasizing that the law of limitation binds all parties.
The court underscored that delays due to administrative negligence cannot justify condonation in legal proceedings, particularly for state agencies, emphasizing the importance of diligence in adherin....
Sufficient cause must be demonstrated for condonation of delay; bureaucratic inefficiencies do not qualify as valid reasons under law, as legal deadlines apply equally to all parties.
The court ruled that governmental entities must demonstrate diligence in filing appeals, and bureaucratic delays do not suffice as grounds for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act.
The court emphasized the necessity of diligence in filing appeals and rejected bureaucratic inefficiency as a valid excuse for delay in legal proceedings.
The law of limitation applies universally, and bureaucratic delays do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning inordinate delays in filing appeals.
Both public entities and individuals are strictly bound by the law of limitation, and dilatory conduct without sufficient reason does not merit condonation of delay in legal proceedings.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.