The court emphasized the necessity of diligence in filing appeals and rejected bureaucratic inefficiency as a valid excuse for delay in legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.

1. This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 by the applicants to condone the delay of 306 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal challenging the judgment dt. 04.01.2023 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 6043 of 2019.

2. In the application seeking condonation of delay, it is stated that after coming to know about the said judgment, the file was put up before the applicants in the Department of Election Office (Cabinet), Election Department for taking further steps; the file was then forwarded to the concerned District of the Election Department; and on 24.05.2023, a letter was received from the office of the Home, Jail and Disaster Management Department regarding filing of LPA against the impugned judgment.

3. Opinion of the Advocate was thereafter sought and he gave his opinion for filing a Letters Patent Appeal against the impugned judgment. On 14.06.2023, the Section Officer forwarded the file to the Deputy Election Officer; the latter forwarded it to the District Election Officer with a noting that LPA may be filed through the concerned Law Officer; on 01.08.2023, the Section Officer forwarded the file to the Deputy Election Officer with a note indicating that the previous Deputy Election Officer, who was assigned to file the LPA had retired on 30.06.2023 resulting in failure to file the LPA; and it was requested that a Deputy Election Officer be appointed to file the Letters Patent Appeal.

4. Subsequently, on 17.10.2023, the Section Officer forwarded the file to the Deputy Election Officer along with a note suggesting that a request may be made to the Advocate General for nomination of a Government Advocate to file the LPA; file was then forwarded to the office of the Senior Standing Counsel-I, Jharkhand High Court, for preparing Letters Patent Appeal; the appeal was then drafted and returned to the Department; and the appeal then came to be filed on 06.12.2023.

5. The limitation for filing a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge in a writ petition is admittedly only 30 days from the date of the said judgment. It was therefore incumbent on the part of the applicants to act with diligence and ensure that LPA is filed within a period of limitation or with the shortest possible delay. The applicants have adopted a very casual approach and the file was simply moved from table to table as if there is no limitation for taking steps to file a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge and they can file the LPA whenever they choose.

6. The Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of Government Departments in moving the file from table to table and inordinately delaying filing appeals against the impugned judgments.

7. In Postmaster General and others v. 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