Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, C.J., DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
The State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development & Housing Department and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Vayam Technologies Limited, through its Vice President and authorized representative namely Rajesh Gupta, Son of Late Anand Prakash Gupta – Respondent
L.P.A. No. 337 of 2019
Decided On : 11-02-2025
(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Condonation of delay - Application filed to condone a delay of 276 days in filing an appeal against a Single Judge's judgment - Delay attributed to procedural formalities and bureaucratic processes - Court emphasizes the need for diligence in prosecuting appeals and the binding nature of limitation on all parties, including the Government. (Paras 1-10)
(B) Delay in filing appeal - The court reiterates that mere bureaucratic delays do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation - The importance of timely action in legal proceedings is emphasized, with reference to precedents where the Supreme Court denied similar applications. (Paras 10-16)
Facts of the case:
The applicants filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone a delay of 276 days in filing an appeal against a judgment passed on 28.6.2018. The delay was primarily due to procedural delays within the department and lack of timely action to obtain a certified copy of the judgment. (Paras 1-6)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the applicants failed to show sufficient cause for the delay, stating that the bureaucratic methodology employed did not justify the inaction. (Paras 16-17)
Issues: The main issues included whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned based on the reasons provided by the applicants and the applicability of the Limitation Act to government entities. (Paras 1, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicants did not demonstrate diligence in pursuing the appeal, and bureaucratic delays do not amount to sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The law of limitation applies equally to all parties. (Paras 10-16)
Result: Application dismissed; Letters Patent Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.
Re: I.A. No. 4288 of 2019 in LPA No. 337 of 2019
1. This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 by the applicants to condone the delay of 276 days in filing this appeal, challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
2. In the application filing seeking condonation of delay, it is stated that the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 1036 of 2018 was passed on 28.6.2018, that the information about the judgment was received in the applicants’ department on 12.7.2018, and the concerned Assistant made a note of it and placed the concerned file before the 2nd appellant. It is stated that the copy of the impugned judgment was not available with the department and the 2nd appellant then asked the Section Officer on 20.7.2018 to obtain the copy.
3. It is stated that in the meantime, the judgment was sent to the applicants’ department on 10.9.2018 by the High Court, and after receiving it, the file was placed before the Assistant Section Officer on 12.9.2018 in order that it be placed before the proper authority for taking appropriate decision.
4. It is stated that the file was then sent to the Deputy Director of the department on 12.9.2018 and he placed it before the Director on 14.9.2018. The file was then placed before the 1st appellant on 3.10.2018 and he then requested the Law department of the State Government to give opinion on 12.10.2018.
5. It is stated that the file then sent to the Law department on 22.10.2018. Ultimately the file was placed before the Advocate General on 5.11.2018 and he endorsed it to his Associate Counsel for drafting the appeal and after collecting some relevant documents and material in January, 2019, the appeal was filed on 30.4.2019.
6. It is stated that the delay in filing of the appeal was on account of need to comply with procedural formalities and the same may be condoned.
7. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that though theimpugned judgment was pronounced on 28.6.2018 , application for certified copy was not made and the processing of the file actually commenced after the copy of the judgment sent by the High Court, was received on 10.9.2018 i.e. more than 2 and 1/ 2 months later.
8. Even, thereafter, the file was being sent from table to table and from officer to officer and though the Advocate General office received it on 5.11.2018, the appeal came to be filed only on 30.4.2019, five months later.
9. Thus, at every stage, there was a delay in taking steps to file the appeal.
10. In Postmaster General and others Vs. Living Media India Limited and another , [ (2012) 3 SCC 563 ], the Supreme Court held:
“25. We have already extracted the reasons as mentioned in the “better affidavit” sworn by Mr. Aparajeet Pattanayak, SSRM, Air Mail Sorting Division, New Delhi. It is relevant to note that in the said affidavit, the Department has itself mentioned and is aware of the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in Office of the Chief Postmaster v. Living Media India Ltd. as 11-9- 2009. Even according to the deponent, their counsel had applied for the certified copy of the said judgment only on 8- 1-2010 and the same was received by the Department on the very same day. There is no explanation for not applying for the certified copy of the impugned judgment on 11-9-2009 or at least within a reasonable time. The fact remains that the certified copy was applied for only on 8- 1-2010 i.e. after a period of nearly four months.
26. In spite of affording another opportunity to file better affidavit by placing adequate material, neither the Department nor the person-in-charge has filed any explanation for not applying the certified copy within the prescribed period. The other dates mentioned in the affidavit which we have already extracted, clearly show that there was delay at every stage and except mentioning the dates of receipt of the file and the decision taken, there is no explanation as to why such delay
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.
Government departments must adhere to limitation periods; bureaucratic delays do not justify condonation of significant delays in legal proceedings.
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....
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.
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 underscored that delays due to administrative negligence cannot justify condonation in legal proceedings, particularly for state agencies, emphasizing the importance of diligence in adherin....
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 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 law of limitation applies universally, and bureaucratic delays do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning inordinate delays in filing appeals.
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
