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.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.

I.A. No. 680 of 2025

1. This application is filed under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963 by the applicants to condone the delay of 377 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal challenging the judgment dt. 07.12.2023 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 34 of 2022.

2. In the application seeking condonation of delay, it is stated that the passing of the impugned order was informed by the counsel for the respondents to the Finance Department of the State of Jharkhand immediately; after receiving the letter on 16.10.2024, the case file was put up before the Deputy Secretary of the applicants’ Department to examine the legal impact of the outcome of the order passed on 07.12.2023 and thereafter a decision was taken to place the case file along with entire records before the Law Department with respect to filing the appeal on 18.10.2024.

3. It is then stated that on 21.10.2024, the file was put up before the Special Secretary of the Finance Department to take appropriate steps in regard to the filing of the appeal; he then took a decision to place the case file along with entire records before the Law Department; in the meantime, legal opinion was sought from the Advocate General in regard to filing of the appeal; the Advocate General on 28.10.2024, through the Senior Standing Counsel-I advised the filing of the appeal; on 29.10.2024 the Retainer Advocate of the applicants’ Department was directed to prepare grounds of appeal; on 29.11.2024 he prepared the grounds and placed before the Deputy Secretary of the applicants’ Department for approval; on 10.12.2024 the grounds of appeal were placed before the Special Secretary, Finance Department to authorize a competent authority to file the appeal; on 13.12.2024 they were approved by the applicants’ Department; papers were then again sent to the Senior Standing Counsel-I to prepare the memo of appeal and the appeal was filed on 17.01.2025.

4. It is stated that due to reasons beyond the control of the applicants, delay occurred in filing the appeal. It is further stated that there are good chances for the success of the appeal and so the delay of 377 days may be condoned.

5. The counsel for the State Government placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Inder Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh , Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024 dt. 21.03.2025 in support of his claim that the delay is liable to be condoned.

6. The contents of the application seeking condonation of delay indicate that though the judgment of the learned Single Judge was pronounced on 07.12.2023 in W.P. (S) No. 34 of 2022, the appeal was, in fact, filed on 17.01.2025, with a delay of 377 days.

7. In paragraph 4 of the application it is stated that immediately after the order was pronounced the counsel for the respondents had informed the applicants’ Department about the outcome of the said writ petition. Why the applicants had to wait till 16.10.2024, almost 11 months thereafter, to move the file for the purpose of preparing appeal, is not explained by the respondents. Even the certified copy of the impugned judgment pronounced on 07.12.2023 was applied for on 17.12.2024, as can be seen from the copy of the certified copy filed along with the memorandum of appeal.

8. It is not denied by the counsel for the applicants that the time for filing a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in a writ petition is 30 days only.

9. When the judgment was pronounced in open court in the presence of the counsel for the applicants, why the applicants