Dismissed¶30

The State of Jharkhand v. Ajit Kumar Deo

Jharkhand HC8 Jul 2025LPA/315/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay rejected; estoppel by withdrawal of appeal; withdrawal of L.P.A. No. 624 of 2017 bars fresh LPA against Single Judge judgment dt. 22.9.2017 in W.P.(S) No. 1255 of 2013; inordinate delay of 1965 days, no sufficient cause; C. Rev. No. 67 of 2024 dismissed 20.9.2024; State of Jharkhand v. Ajit Kumar Deo & another; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, Division Bench oral judgment pronounced 08.07.2025; I.A. No. 3402 of 2025 in L.P.A. No. 315 of 2025; application for condonation and LPA dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Having withdrawn LPA No. 624 of 2017 against the impugned judgment dt. 22.9.2017 with liberty to file a Civil Review, the applicants cannot be permitted to file an LPA again against the same judgment of the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. ¶25

The State of Jharkhand Vs Ajit Kumar Deo — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 1965 days in filing L.P.A. No. 315 of 2025 challenging the Single Judge judgment dt. 22.9.2017 in W.P.(S) No. 1255 of 2013 ought to be condoned. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

The delay of 1965 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is inordinate and there is no sufficient cause to accept the reason assigned for condoning the said period of delay.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

¶25

Key takeaways

At best, the applicants can challenge in LPA the order passed in C. Rev. No. 67 of 2024, if such challenge is permitted by law.obiter¶25
The withdrawal of LPA No. 624 of 2017 estops the applicants from challenging again by LPA the judgment dt. 22.9.2017 passed in the writ petition; their conduct in withdrawing the earlier LPA, waiting for the review to be dismissed on 20.9.2024 and then filing the LPA again cannot be countenanced.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

I.A. No. 3402 of 2025 in L.P.A. No. 315 of 2025 (Division Bench: M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. and Rajesh Shankar, J.; reserved 02.07.2025, pronounced 08.07.2025). The appellants (State of Jharkhand and Water Resources Department officials) sought condonation of a 1965-day delay in filing a Letters Patent Appeal against the learned Single Judge's judgment dt. 22.9.2017 in W.P.(S) No. 1255 of 2013. They had earlier filed L.P.A. No. 624 of 2017 against the same judgment and withdrew it on 6.2.2024 with liberty to file a civil review; C. Rev. No. 67 of 2024 was dismissed on 20.9.2024. Held (oral DB judgment): (i) having withdrawn the earlier LPA with liberty to seek civil review, the applicants cannot be permitted to file a fresh LPA against the same judgment — the withdrawal estops them from re-challenging the judgment dt. 22.9.2017 by LPA, their conduct in withdrawing, awaiting dismissal of the review and re-filing being untenable; at best they may challenge in LPA the order in C. Rev. No. 67 of 2024, if permitted by law; and (ii) the 1965-day delay is inordinate with no sufficient cause for condonation. The condonation application and, consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal were dismissed; all pending applications closed (A.F.R.).

¶1

2025:JHHC:18225-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

I.A. No. 3402 of 2025

¶4

In/And

¶5

L.P.A. No. 315 of 2025

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi

¶8

The Chief Engineer, Subernrekha Multi Project, Chandil, P.O. & P.S.Chandil, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand... ... Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

Ajit Kumar Deo, son of Late Laxmi Deo, resident of Village Taraghat, P.O. & P.S. Jasidih, District Deoghar, Jharkhand

¶11

Jaideo Prasad Singh, son of Late Shesha Prasad Singh, resident of Village Jhalpur, P.O. & P.S. Deoghar, District-Deoghar, Jharkhand

¶12

… ... Respondents

¶13

¶14

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶15

--------For the Appellants: Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II For the Respondents:

¶16

¶17

Reserved on: 02.07.2025 Pronounced on: 08 / 07 /2025 M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. (Oral)

¶18

1) The instant interlocutory application is filed by the applicants for condonation of delay of 1965 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal challenging the judgment dt. 22.9.2017 in W.P.(S) No. 1255 of 2013 of the learned Single Judge.

¶19

2) In the application filed seeking condonation of delay the applicants contend that they had previously filed L.P.A. No. 624 of 2017 against the judgment of the learned Single Judge with an application for condonation of delay, but withdrew the same on 6.2.2024 for filing of

¶20

-1 of 3- L.P.A. No. 315 of 2025

¶21

2025:JHHC:18225-DB

¶22

a review application. Thereafter, they filed C. Rev. No. 67 of 2024 which was also dismissed on 20.9.2024.

¶23

3) It is contended in the application by the applicants that after the copy of the judgment in the review application was received on 25.9.2024, it was decided to prefer an LPA against the order dt. 22.9.2017 in W.P.(S) No. 1255 of 2013.

¶24

4) Thereafter steps were taken by sending the file to the office of the Additional Secretary of the applicant Department, then to the Advocate General and again to the Department, and ultimately the appeal was filed on 3.3.2025.

¶25

5) Having withdrawn the LPA No. 624 of 2017 against the impugned judgment dt.22.9.2017 with liberty to file a Civil Review , the applicants cannot be permitted to file an LPA again against the same judgment of the learned single Judge in the Writ petition. At best, they can challenge in LPA, the order passed in the C. Rev. No. 67 of 2024 if such challenge is permitted by law.

¶26

6) The conduct of the applicants in withdrawing the LPA No. 624 of 2017, waiting for the review to be dismissed on 20.9.2024 and then filing the LPA again against the judgment dt. 22.9.2017 cannot be countenanced. The withdrawal of the LPA No. 624 of 2017 estops them from challenging again by LPA the judgment dt. 22.9.2017 passed in the writ petition.

¶27

7) In any event, the delay of 1965 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is inordinate and there is no sufficient cause to accept the reason assigned for condoning the said period of delay.

¶28

-2 of 3- L.P.A. No. 315 of 2025

¶29

2025:JHHC:18225-DB

¶30