Dismissed¶26

The State of Jharkhand Represented through the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau v. Bishram Dubey

Jharkhand HC19 Jun 2026C.M.P./1045/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; 1091 days delay; restoration of Second Appeal S.A. No.316 of 2016; C.M.P. No.1045 of 2024; I.A. No.12802 of 2024; State of Jharkhand; Deputy Commissioner Palamau; Executive Engineer Water Ways Division Medininagar; defects not removed; dismissal dated 03.09.2019; order dated 06.08.2019 four weeks peremptory time; blame on counsel insufficient; government same yardstick for condonation; Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors 2021 SCC OnLine SC 233; Postmaster General (2012) 3 SCC 563; limitation; Ananda Sen J.; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

There is no plausible reason mentioned in the Interlocutory Application to condone the 1091-day delay. ¶14

The State of Jharkhand Represented through the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau Vs Bishram Dubey — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 1091 days in filing C.M.P. No.1045 of 2024 (the restoration application for S.A. No.316 of 2016) ought to be condoned via I.A. No.12802 of 2024.

¶10

Court's answer

There is no plausible reason mentioned in the Interlocutory Application to condone the 1091-day delay.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Instead of dealing with the reasons for the delay, the petitioners simply blamed the counsel; their own efforts were not dealt with, they slept over the matter for the whole 1091 days, and the reasons advanced for condonation are unbelievable.

¶18

Key takeaways

Where the State comes before this Court seeking condonation of delay, the criteria for condoning the delay is somewhat the same; adopting the Supreme Court's position (Borse Brothers, quoting Postmaster General), mere government involvement does not warrant a different yardstick for condonation.ratio¶19
In view of the Supreme Court judgment, the facts of the case, and the absence of any sufficient explanation given by the State for the delay of 1091 days, I.A. No.12802 of 2024 is dismissed.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Ananda Sen, J.) — C.M.P. No.1045 of 2024 by the State of Jharkhand (through the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau) and the Executive Engineer, Water Ways Division, Medininagar, with I.A. No.12802 of 2024 seeking condonation of a 1091-day delay in filing the petition for restoration of S.A. No.316 of 2016, which had stood dismissed on 03.09.2019 for failure to remove defects within the four weeks' peremptory time granted by order dated 06.08.2019. The Court found no plausible reason for the delay: the applicants merely blamed their counsel, did not disclose any efforts of their own, and slept over the matter for the entire period. Applying Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) v. Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 233 (which reproduces Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd., (2012) 3 SCC 563), the Court held that government involvement attracts the same yardstick and does not justify mechanical condonation absent a reasonable, acceptable explanation and bona fide effort. I.A. No.12802 of 2024 dismissed; consequently, C.M.P. No.1045 of 2024 also dismissed.

¶1

2026:JHHC:17931

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 1045 of 2024

¶3

The State of Jharkhand represented through the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, at and P.O. & P.S. Medninagar, District Palamau.

¶4

The Executive Engineer, Water Ways Division at Medininagar and P.O. Medninagar, P.S. Medininagar, District Palamau .... Petitioner(s).

¶5

Versus

¶6

Bishram Dubey, Son of Late Ram Lagan Dubey, Proprietor of Jai Bhawani Construction), Resident of Village Sudna, P.O. & P.S. Medinagar, Dist. Palamau. … Opposite Party.

¶7

------CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harsh Preet Singh, Advocate For the Opp. Party :

¶8

------

¶9

06/ 19.06.2026 : I.A. No.12802 of 2024

¶10

This Interlocutory Application has been filed for condonation of delay of 1091 days in filing this Civil Miscellaneous Petition for restoration of S.A. No.316 of 2016.

¶11

The Second Appeal filed by the petitioner, was dismissed as the defects were not removed. In Second Appeal, vide order dated 06.08.2019, this Court passed the following order for removing the defects:

¶12

“04/06.08.2019 Four weeks’ time, as prayed for, is allowed to remove all the defects, failing which, this appeal shall stand rejected without any further reference to a Bench.”

¶13

The Second Appeal was filed on 21.06.2016 and till 2019 the defects were not removed. It was listed under the heading “For Orders with Defects” for removal of the defects on 06.08.2019 when four weeks’ peremptory time was granted to remove the defects and as the defects were not removed within the said time, S.A. No.316 of 2016 stood dismissed on 03.09.2019 due to non-compliance of the order dated 06.08.2019. Thereafter, no steps were taken for restoration, rather only on 21.09.2024 this restoration application was filed i.e. after the delay of 1091 days.

¶14

After going through the records, I find that there is no plausible reason mentioned in this Interlocutory Application to condone the delay. For about

¶15

1091 days, the petitioners slept over the matter and the reason given in the Interlocutory Application is absolutely unbelievable. It is necessary to quote paragraphs 7 and 8 of the instant Interlocutory Applications, which reads as under:

¶16

“7. That it is humbly stated that the Appellant has not informed about that order dated 06.08.2019 and the Counsel for the appellant also refused to receive the memo of information issued by the office.

¶17

8. That it is humbly stated that therefore the Appellant has not no knowledge about the order passed by the Hon’ble Court and also no step appears to have taken by the Counsel, therefore no restoration application could be filed earlier by the Appellant.”

¶18

From paragraphs 7 and 8 of this Interlocutory Application, I get an impression that instead of dealing with the reasons of delay, the petitioners simply blamed the counsel for such delay. What efforts the petitioners have taken, have not been dealt with. For whole 1091 days, they slept over the matter and now they reached this Court stating unbelievable reasons for condoning the delay.

¶19

In the matter where the State came before this Court for condonation of delay the criteria of condoning the delay is somewhat same. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) v. Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd.” reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 233 at paragraph No.58 has held as under:

¶20

“58. Likewise, merely because the government is involved, a different yardstick for condonation of delay cannot be laid down. This was felicitously stated in Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd., (2012) 3 SCC 563 [“Postmaster General”], as follows:

¶21

“27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.

¶22

28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and -2-

¶23

inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government.

¶24

29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.”

¶25

In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the facts of this case and as there is no sufficient explanation given by the State for condoning the delay of 1091 days, I.A. No.12802 of 2024 is dismissed .

¶26

Consequently, C.M.P. No.1045 of 2024 is also dismissed .

¶27

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶28

19^th June, 2026 Madhav/Uploaded on:23/06/2026

¶29

-3-

The State of Jharkhand Represented through the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau v. Bishram Dubey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Jharkhand Represented through the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau v. Bishram Dubey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarju Dangi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pramod Kumar Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Moinuddin, Proprietor of M/S a. R. Agencies Vs Bank of Baroda through Chief Manager/Authorised Officer

Binod Layak Vs Ashok Baghot

Daulat Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shakuntala Kumari Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Dept. of Social Welfare, Women and Child Development