Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, C.J., DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary/Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Ranchi and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Diwakar Pandey, son of Sri Mahesh Pandey – Respondent
I.A. No.5758 of 2024 IN/AND L.P.A. No. 361 of 2024
Decided On : 11-03-2025
(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Condonation of delay - Application filed to condone delay of 283 days in filing Letters Patent Appeal against judgment of Single Judge - Delay attributed to bureaucratic processes and negligence - Court found insufficient cause shown for delay - Court emphasized that the law of limitation binds all, including the Government. (Paras 1, 13, 21)
(B) Condonation of Delay - The court highlighted that mere bureaucratic delays and lack of diligence do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay, citing precedents. (Paras 16, 18)
Facts of the case:
The applicants sought to condone a delay in filing an appeal against a judgment delivered on 29.08.2023, attributing the delay to internal departmental processes and elections. The court noted a lack of urgency and diligence in pursuing the appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the inordinate delay of 283 days in filing the appeal.
Issues: The main issue concerned whether sufficient cause was shown for the delay in filing the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that bureaucratic lethargy and negligence do not justify condoning delay, emphasizing that the law of limitation applies equally to all parties, including the Government.
Result: Application dismissed; Letters Patent Appeal also dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
I.A. No.5758 of 2024
1. This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act , 1963 to condone the delay of 283 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal challenging the judgment dt. 29.08.2023 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 5631 of 2022.
2. In the application seeking condonation of delay, it is contended that the fact of disposal of the said Writ petition was informed to the applicants’ Department; after receiving a letter on 24.04.2024, the case file was put up before the Assistant Director of the applicants’ Department for perusal; he directed the Retainer Advocate for preparing the grounds of appeal; and after several rounds of discussions between them, a decision was taken to prefer appeal.
3. It was further stated that after preparation of grounds of appeal, it was put up before the competent authority to take a final decision on filing of appeal; thereafter it was put up before the Joint Secretary of the Department for approval, and after such approval, the District Superintendent of Education, Koderma was authorised to file appeal.
4. As per the application, the Advocate General also gave his opinion on 01.05.2024 and thereafter the appeal was filed on 12.06.2024 through the Sr. Standing Counsel-I.
5. Subsequently, a supplementary affidavit was filed adding more details to the events which transpired after the judgment was delivered in the writ petition on 29.08.2023.
6. It is stated that the District Education Establishment Committee, Koderma on 26.10.2023 decided to file an appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge; on 23.02.2024 new District Superintendent of Education, Koderma took charge of the said post; on 09.03.2024, present District Superintendent of Education, Koderma took charge of the district of Koderma and he was assigned additional charge of District Superintendent of Education, Koderma and after joining the said post, the present District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Education Officer, Koderma took the matter seriously.
7. It is stated that during Lok Sabha Election 2024, he was assigned the duty of Assistant Nodal Officer for Manpower Management, Karmik Koshang and Nodal Officer of the Training Cell till 20.05.2024.
8. According to the applicants, the Retainer Counsel of the applicants’ Department was directed to prepare the grounds of appeal on 09.04.2024 which was then prepared and placed before the Director of the School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand (Primary Education).
9. Through a letter dt. 09.04.2024 and another letter dt. 24.04.2024, the Director of School Education and Literacy Department sought permission to file appeal; the file was then placed before the Assistant Director on 24.04.2024 to take steps for filing appeal; on next day the Section Officer of the Department forwarded the file to the Joint Secretary of the applicants’ Department; on the following day, the Joint Secretary of the applicants’ Department after examining the grounds of appeal approved for filing of the appeal and placed it before the Director.
10. It is stated that thereafter on 29.04.2024, the Director of the applicants’ Department sought opinion from the Advocate General for filing appeal and on 01.05.2024, the Advocate General advised for filing of appeal through the Senior Standing Counsel No.1 and thereafter, the present appeal was filed on 12.06.2024.
11. It is also mentioned that a Contempt application being Cont. Case (Civil) No. 276 of 2024 was also filed by the respondent seeking implementation of the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
12. We have noted the contentions of the counsel for the applicants.
13. When the order of the learned Single Judge was passed on 29.08.2023 and the applicants’ Department was well aware of the judgment, it appears that the papers were moved from one table to another table, from one office to another office, in a very casual manner which ultimately resulted in inor
The law of limitation applies universally, and bureaucratic delays do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning inordinate delays in filing appeals.
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.
The court emphasized the necessity of diligence in filing appeals and rejected bureaucratic inefficiency as a valid excuse for delay in legal 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.
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.
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.
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
