Dismissed¶15

The State of Jharkhand v. Radhe Shyam Pandey

Jharkhand HC16 Sept 2025LPA/721/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

condonation of delay; 242 days; sufficient cause; bona fides; Letters Patent Appeal; L.P.A. 721 of 2023; I.A. No. 6918 of 2025; State of Jharkhand; Water Resources Department; Principal Secretary; Joint Secretary; Chief Engineer; Radhe Shyam Pandey; Accountant General; administrative lethargy; State laxity; frivolous and superfluous grounds; Shivamma (dead) by LRS; Karnataka Housing Board; Civil Appeal No. 11794 of 2025; Section 100 of the CPC; limitation 30 days; certified copy applied 11.10.2023; appeal filed 22.12.2023; order dated 22.03.2023; 2025:JHHC:28272-DB; Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.; Rajesh Shankar, J.; N.A.F.R.

What did the court decide?

None; condonation of delay refused and the Letters Patent Appeal dismissed. ¶15

The State of Jharkhand Vs Radhe Shyam Pandey — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; condonation of delay refused and the Letters Patent Appeal dismissed.

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 242 days in filing Letters Patent Appeal No. 721 of 2023 against the order dated 22.03.2023 ought to be condoned as having been occasioned by sufficient cause.

¶2

Court's answer

Apart from general allegations of the file being tossed from desk to desk, no cause amounting to 'sufficient cause' was shown; the grounds urged were frivolous and superfluous.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The applicants knew the 30-day period for filing the appeal yet initiated the process only after nearly three months, and applied for the certified copy only on 11.10.2023, showing they were not at all serious about filing the appeal.

¶12

Key takeaways

The averments disclose no bona fides of the State capable of constituting 'sufficient cause' to condone the delay.ratio¶13
No sufficient cause having been made out, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed and, consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal is also dismissed.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Division Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J. and Rajesh Shankar, J.), oral judgment dated 16.09.2025 [2025:JHHC:28272-DB] in I.A. No. 6918 of 2025 in L.P.A. 721 of 2023 — State of Jharkhand and Water Resources Department officers (appellants) v. Radhe Shyam Pandey (Respondent No. 1/writ petitioner) and the Accountant General, Jharkhand (Respondent No. 2). The State sought condonation of 242 days' delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 22.03.2023 in the writ petition. The Court found the explanation — inaction of nearly three months despite same-day communication of the order, an undated reference to the Law Department, the Advocate General's opinion of 13.06.2023, drafting by Retainer Counsel taking until August 2023, application for the certified copy only on 11.10.2023, Puja vacation closure, and three weeks spent obtaining typed copies — frivolous and superfluous, disclosing no bona fides or vigilance, especially as the applicants knew the 30-day limitation for filing the appeal. Relying on the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Shivamma (dead) by LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 11794 of 2025 (decided 12.09.2025), that administrative lethargy and laxity can never stand as a sufficient ground for condonation and that constitutional courts must not legitimise the callous attitude of State authorities, the Court dismissed the application for condonation and, consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal. Pending applications, if any, closed. N.A.F.R.

¶1

2025:JHHC:28272-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

I.A. No. 6918 of 2025

¶4

In / And L.P.A. 721 of 2023

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi

¶7

The Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi

¶8

The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Nepal House, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, DistrictRanchi ... Appellants/Respondents

¶9

Versus

¶10

Radhe Shyam Pandey, son of Late Kailash Pati Pandey, presently residing at C/o Shri P.K. Shrivastava, Ram Janki Path, Near Kali Mandir, Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, Kankarbagh, P.O. Kankarbagh, P.S. Kankarbagh, District- Patna, State- Bihar

¶11

… Respondent/Writ Petitioner

¶12

The Accountant General, Jharkhand, North Office Para, Shyamali Colony, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi.

¶13

... Respondent/Respondent

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

For the Appellants: Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Sr. S.C.-I For Resp. No.1: Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate Mr. Raj, Advocate For Resp. No.2: Mr. Rohit Sinha, Advocate ---------

¶17

08/Dated: 16.09.2025

¶18

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J. (Oral)

¶19

1. Heard.

¶20

2. By medium of this application, the appellants-State has sought condonation of delay of 242 days that has crept up in filing of the appeal.

¶21

Page 1 of 6

¶22

2025:JHHC:28272-DB

¶23

3. Going by the averments made in the application, it is abundantly clear that even though the respondents (applicants herein) were communicated the outcome of the order dated 22^nd of March 2023 on that day itself, however, the respondents for the first time placed the matter before the Under Secretary after nearly three months on 7^th of June 2023 and the same is alleged to have been forwarded to the Secretary of the Department with a detailed noting regarding the outcome of the writ petition along with recommendation for filing of the appeal.

¶24

4. The Secretary of the Department is alleged to have considered the matter and referred it to the Law Department, but the date on which such reference has been forwarded has not been mentioned in the application.

¶25

5. It is thereafter averred that the file on receipt of by the Law Department was endorsed to the learned Advocate General for obtaining legal opinion as to whether there is any scope for filing appeal against the order dated 22^nd of March 2023.

¶26

6. On 13^th of June 2023, the learned Advocate General formed an opinion and recommended for filing of the Letters Patent Appeal against the impugned order.

¶27

7. Following the said recommendations, grounds of appeals were directed to be drafted through Retainer Counsel of the Department on 16^th of June 2023 itself and it is alleged that the same took additional time due to his preoccupation and some other assigned matters and came to be submitted after gap of two months in August 2023.

¶28

Page 2 of 6

¶29

2025:JHHC:28272-DB

¶30

8. It is further averred that after obtaining the draft appeal, the file was endorsed and sent to the Department at Secretary Level for approval of the proposed grounds of appeal in September 2023.

¶31

9. It is averred that after approval of the grounds of appeal, the original file filed along with all supporting documents was forwarded to the Office of the Senior Standing Counsel-I who was entrusted to draft and file the appeal in the 1^st week of October 2023, and thereafter the appeal was drafted as per the format of the Rules framed by this Court and filed eventually on 11.10.2023 after its receipt on 08.11.2023.

¶32

10. It is thereafter averred that due to Deepawali and Chhath Puja, there was vacation from 11.11.2023 to 20.11.2023 and no steps of filing were taken as the Advocate’s Office was completely closed and the Advocate’s clerk was out of station during the Puja vacation.

¶33

11. It is only on reopening of the Court on 21^st of November 2023 that the memo of appeal was prepared for filing, but due to several illegible pages which were required to be typed of, which took another three weeks to obtain the typed copies and thereafter the appeal was finally filed on 22^nd of December 2023 which caused delay of 242 days in filing of the appeal.

¶34

12. We have heard learned counsel for the respondents (applicants herein) and find that apart from the general allegations regarding the tossing of the file from one desk to the other, there is no cause shown which could be termed as “sufficient” to condone the delay, rather frivolous and superfluous grounds have been carved out in the

¶35

Page 3 of 6

¶36

2025:JHHC:28272-DB

¶37

application. The applicants very well knew that the time period for filing of appeal is only 30 days and even as per the allegations of the applicants, the process to file the appeal came to be initiated after nearly three months. That apart, the certified copy of the order came to be applied only on 11^th of October 2023 which goes to indicate that the applicants were not at all serious to file the appeal.

¶38

13. The entire averments only go to indicate that there are no bona fides of the State which could constitute “sufficient cause” to condone the delay.

¶39

14. As regards condonation of delay by the State, we need to bear in mind the latest judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivamma (dead) by LRS Vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Others, Civil Appeal No. 11794 of 2025 decided on 12^th of September 2025, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under -

¶40

“261. Thus, for the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order of the High Court deserves to be set aside. Before we proceed to close this judgment, we deem it appropriate to make it abundantly clear that administrative lethargy and laxity can never stand as a sufficient ground for condonation of delay, and we want to convey an emphatic message to all the High Courts that delays shall not be condoned on frivolous and superficial grounds, until a proper case of sufficient cause is made out, wherein the State-machinery is able to establish that it acted with bona fides and remained vigilant all

¶41

Page 4 of 6

¶42

2025:JHHC:28272-DB

¶43

throughout. Procedure is a handmaid to justice, as is famously said. But courts, and more particularly the constitutional courts, ought not to obviate the procedure for a litigating State agency, who also equally suffer the bars of limitation from pursuing litigations due to its own lackadaisical attitude.

¶44

262. The High Courts ought not give a legitimizing effect to such callous attitude of State authorities or its instrumentalities, and should remain extra cautious, if the party seeking condonation of delay is a State-authority. They should not become surrogates for State laxity and lethargy. The constitutional courts ought to be cognizant of the apathy and pangs of a private litigant. Litigants cannot be placed in situations of perpetual litigations, wherein the fruits of their decrees or favourable orders are frustrated at later stages. We are at pains to reiterate this everlasting trend, and put all the High Courts to notice, not to reopen matters with inordinate delay, until sufficient cause exists, as by doing so the courts only add insult to the injury, more particularly in appeals under Section 100 of the CPC, wherein its jurisdiction is already limited to questions of law.

¶45

263. Limitation periods are prescribed to maintain a sweeping scope for the lis to attain for finality. More than the importance of judicial time, what worries us is the plight of a litigant with limited means, who is to contest against an

¶46

Page 5 of 6

¶47

2025:JHHC:28272-DB

¶48

enormous State, and its elaborate and never-exhausting paraphernalia. Such litigations deserve to be disposed of at the very threshold, because, say if a party litigating against the State, for whatever reason, is unable to contest the condonation of delay in appeal, unlike the present case, it reopens the lis for another round of litigation, and leaves such litigant listless yet again. As courts of conscience, it is our obligation that we assure that a litigant is not sent from pillar to post to seek justice.

¶49

264. No litigant should be permitted to be so lethargic and apathetic, much less be permitted by the courts to misuse the process of law.”

¶50

15. Consequently, we find no sufficient cause having been carved out to condone the delay. The application is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal is also dismissed.

¶51

16. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.

¶52

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.)

¶53

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶54

September 16, 2025

¶55

N.A.F.R.

¶56

Manoj/Pramanik/Cp.2.