IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, C.J., DEEPAK ROSHAN
State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary/Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Ranchi – Appellant
Versus
Diwakar Pandey, son of Sri Mahesh Pandey – Respondent
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
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
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.
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.