The State of Jharkhand Vs Naval Kishor Singh — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

The State of Jharkhand Vs Naval Kishor Singh — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted to the appellants; the condonation I.A. and the accompanying appeal were dismissed, and this court ordered 'No costs'.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellants showed 'sufficient cause' justifying condonation of the 237-day delay in instituting the Letters Patent Appeal against the costs component of the Single Judge's order dated 22.02.2024.

Court's answer

The 237-day delay in instituting the Letters Patent Appeal remains unexplained; the explanations offered, including in the supplementary affidavit, do not constitute 'sufficient cause', and the I.A. seeking condonation is dismissed.

Ratio / Principle

Consequent to the dismissal of the condonation I.A., the accompanying Letters Patent Appeal (L.P.A No. 303 of 2025) is dismissed, with no costs.

Key takeaways

The appellants' supplementary-affidavit contention that there was no delay on their part in paying the pensions is an argument on the merits and does not explain the procedural delay in instituting the appeal.ratio¶22
The stay application I.A. No. 9425 of 2024 will not survive and is disposed of.obiter¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, Division Bench — L.P.A No. 303 of 2025 with I.A. Nos. 9424 and 9425 of 2024 (State of Jharkhand and four Water Resource Department/Medininagar officials v. Nawal Kishore Singh and the Office of Accountant General, Jharkhand). The appellants sought condonation of a 237-day delay in instituting a Letters Patent Appeal mounted solely against the Rs. 25,000 costs imposed by the learned Single Judge's order dated 22.02.2024 — costs levied because of a delay in paying pensions to the respondents. Held: even excluding the pension-delay circumstance, the 237-day delay remained unexplained; the original I.A. and affidavit were bereft of proper explanation, and the supplementary affidavit of 05.01.2026 advanced only a merits argument (that there was no delay in paying pensions), which does not explain the procedural delay and therefore does not constitute "sufficient cause". The condonation I.A. was dismissed and, consequently, the accompanying appeal was dismissed with no costs; the stay application (I.A. No. 9425 of 2024) did not survive and was disposed of. Bench: the Chief Justice and Deepak Roshan, J.; heard 05.02.2026.

2026:JHHC:3153-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A No. 303 of 2025

The State of Jharkhand

The Principal Secretary, Water Resource Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Nepal House, P.O and P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi

The Deputy Commissioner Medininagar, P.O & PS Medininagar, District-Medininagar

The Chief Engineer, Water Resource Department, Medininagar, P.O & P.S. Medininagar, Districtmedininagar

The Special Land Acquisiton Officer, North Koyal Project, Medininagar P.O & P.S. Medininagar, DistrictMedininagar .... Appellant(s)

Versus

Nawal Kishore Singh, aged aobut 65 years, S/o. Late Sita Ram Singh, Resident of Village+P.O.-Ghongsa, P.S. Halsi, District-Lakhisaray at present R/o. Khariya Basti, Shankosai, Near Welfare Tower, P.O-MGM, P.S.-Mango, District East Singhbhum (Jamshedpur)

2.The Office of Accountant General, Jharkhand, P.O and P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi .. Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

--

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhijit Anand, AC to AAG-II For the Respondent(s) :

-- 5/05.02.2026 I.A. No. 9424 of 2024

Heard Mr. Abhijit Anand for the applicants.

This is an application seeking condonation of a 237-

day delay in instituting a Letters Patent Appeal against the learned Single Judge’s order dated 22.02.2024 to the extent it imposes costs of Rs. 25,000 upon the appellants.

The accompanying appeal solely contests these costs, which were imposed due to a delay in the payment of pensions to the respondents. However, even if this circumstance is excluded from consideration, we note that the 237-day delay remains unexplained.

1

2026:JHHC:3153-DB

The explanation offered does not constitute "sufficient cause." The I.A. (Interlocutory Application) and the accompanying affidavit were bereft of any proper explanation; therefore, an opportunity was granted to file a supplementary affidavit.

We have perused the supplementary affidavit filed on 05.01.2026. In this affidavit, the appellants merely argue that there was no delay on their part in paying the pension to the respondents and, therefore, the costs of Rs. 25,000 should not have been imposed. This is an argument on merits and does not explain the delay.

A supplementary affidavit was directed to be filed because no sufficient cause was shown in the original I.A. or its accompanying affidavit.

Despite being granted a further opportunity, the supplementary affidavit still fails to show sufficient cause. Accordingly, we dismiss the I.A. Consequently, the accompanying appeal is also dismissed. No costs.

I.A No. 9425 of 2024 seeking a stay will not survive and is disposed of.

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

5^th February, 2026 Jk/Amit Uploaded on 16/02/2026

2