The Court dismissed an appeal by the State in a service matter. Rejecting condonation of significant delay caused by filing an appeal to stall a contempt proceeding, the Court held the appeal devoid of merit and ordered its dismissal along with an interim application.
Continuing service in the State of Jharkhand was affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 72 of 2016
with
I.A. No. 832 of 2016
with
I.A. No. 833 of 2016
Versus
Binod Kindo, S/o Shanti Prakash Kindo, Vill & PO- Arangi PS & District Gumla………… Respondent
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
…… For the Appellant : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, JC to GP-I For the Respondent : Mr. A.K.Das, Advocate
Order No. 04 /Dated : 8th August, 2016 Per Virender Singh, C.J. :
1. Heard learned counsel for both the sides.
2 . Apart from the fact that the appeal of the appellant-State is very weak on merits when the facts of the case is examined in detail, even otherwise no ground much less sufficient grounds has been carved out by the appellant-State for condonation of 348 days' delay in filing the instant Letters Patent Appeal. What we find from the objections raised by Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-writ petitioner, is that when the impugned order was not complied with by the State for reasonably good period, the respondent-writ petitioner was constrained to file contempt petition being Cont. Case (Civil) No. 492 of 2015 and after the State was asked to file show cause, it has now filed the instant appeal in order to stall the contempt proceeding, which we are observing delay has become the usual practice of the State.
continuing in service after having been appointed on 29.12.1989. The appeal, in our considered view, being devoid of any merit and there being no ground for condoning the aforesaid delay, deserves to be dismissed on both counts.
(Virender Singh, C.J)
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J)
Mukund/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether condonation of 348 days' delay in filing a Letters Patent Appeal is warranted.
Whether the appeal, devoid of merit and filed to stall contempt proceedings, can be allowed.
The State of Jharkhand
Binod Kindo
Virender Singh
Shree Chandrashekhar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
