The law of limitation must be rigorously enforced, and applications for condoning delays require clear, bona fide explanations to be accepted.

ORAL JUDGMENT

06/Dated: 06.01.2022

The matter has been taken up through Video Conferencing with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. They have no complaint whatsoever regarding audio/visual quality.

2. The instant intra-court appeal is under Clause-10 of Letters Patent directed against the order/judgment dated 17.04.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.2609 of 2015, by which, the penalty order dated 07.10.2021 and appellate order dated 10.01.2013 passed by the appellants/respondents against the writ petitioner, have been quashed.

I.A.No.11277 of 2019

3. The instant appeal is barred by inordinate delay of 568 days, therefore, an application for condoning the aforesaid delay has been filed being I.A.No.11277 of 2019.

4. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the instant intra-court appeal has been field after inordinate delay of 568 days, deems it fit and proper, to first consider the delay condonation application before going into the legality and propriety of the impugned order on merit.

5. The ground for condonation of delay has been taken, as per the pleading made in the instant interlocutory application to the effect that due information was furnished about the judgment dated 17.04.2018 by the concerned State Counsel to the department. Thereafter, certified copy of the judgment was obtained and after obtaining the same, the file was prepared and placed before the authority to take a decision in the matter. Thereafter, the file was processed and sent to the office of Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, as also to the office of Engineer-in-Chief, Jharkhand, Road Construction Department, with request in the matter as to what course was to be adopted in the matter. The file was thereafter, sent to the Law Department for opinion and from there, the file was sent to the office of the learned Advocate General for legal opinion, wherein, opinion was given to file review application. Thereafter, file was returned through proper channel to the Administrative Department for preparing a review application. But review application could not have been filed, rather decision was taken to file an appeal against the impugned order, as such, file was again returned back to the office of the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department and from there, it was again sent to the office of the learned Advocate General for legal opinion. This time the learned Advocate General has given opinion to file an appeal before this Court and accordingly, the appeal was filed after inordinate delay of 568 days.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has vehemently argued that the reason assigned in the instant interlocutory application is sufficient to condone the delay.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on delay condonation application and before considering the same, this Court, deems it fit and proper to refer certain legal proposition as has been propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court with respect to the approach of the Court in condoning the inordinate delay.

8. There is no dispute about the fact that generally the lis is not to be rejected on the technical ground of limitation but certainly if the filing of appeal suffers from inordinate delay, then the duty of the Court to consider the application to condone the delay before entering into the merit of the lis .

It requires to refer herein that the Law of limitation is enshrined in the legal maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties, rather the idea is that every legal remedy mu