RANCHI, India, July 29 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on June 30:

1) This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 266 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal challenging the judgment dt. 02.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 890 of 2018.

2) In the application filed for condonation of delay, it is stated that the file was put up before the Assistant director (Law Cell) for taking further steps in the matter; that he forwarded the file to the Assistant Director on 15.02.2024; the latter put up the file before the Under Secretary (Law) on 20.02.2024 with a noting that the file may be endorsed to the Law Department for its opinion; and it was then placed before the Director/Principal Secretary on 26.02.2024 with the same noting. The Secretary then forwarded it to the Under Secretary (Law) again saying that opinion of Law Department may be obtained; file was then endorsed to the Departmental retainer for preparing grounds of appeal on 31.05.2024 and he prepared the grounds of appeal on 26.06.2024.

3) Thereafter, the file was forwarded on 28.06.2024 to the Advocate General for his consultation and he gave opinion for filing a Letters Patent Appeal through one of his law officers and thereafter the appeal was filed on 24.10.2024.

4) A supplementary counter affidavit is also filed thereafter on merits of the case of the respondent in the writ petition.

5) It is, thus, apparent that though the judgment of the learned Single Judge was pronounced on 02.01.2024 in the presence of the applicants' counsel, and the applicants were aware of the said order even by 08.01.2024, and they were also aware that a Letters Patent Appeal is to be filed within 30 days from the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the applicants filed the Letters Patent Appeal on 24.10.2024 with a delay of 266 days. They had not even applied for issuance of certified copy till 24.09.2024 and after securing the certified copy on 15.10.2024, the appeal was filed.

6) It appears that the file was being pushed from table to table periodically and leisurely without any sense of urgency.

7) This practice of moving the file from table to table and taking an unduly longtime in filing appeals has been criticized by the Supreme Court in several cases.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqK4TYVb0mTFEORi8zAyeq78p5XZ62ceHV1kDPv38nzzt&caseno=LPA/610/2024&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010374452024&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.