Jharkhand High Court Denies Delay Condonation: 'Litigation Favours the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights'
Kiran Raj
The High Court of Jharkhand Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan, has dismissed an application seeking condonation of a 461-day delay in filing a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA). The application, I.A. No.1136 of 2025, was filed by the State of Jharkhand and its officials against a judgment delivered on October 16, 2019. The Division Bench stated that the delay was not satisfactorily explained and therefore could not be condoned.
The case originated from a writ petition (W.P. (S) No. 7556 of 2017) filed by Brahmdeo Choudhary against the State of Jharkhand and the Director of Secondary Education. The Single Judge of the High Court had delivered a decision on October 16, 2019, in favor of the petitioner. The State of Jharkhand sought to challenge this judgment through a Letters Patent Appeal, but the appeal was filed belatedly on February 19, 2021.
The appellants argued that the delay was caused due to administrative procedures within the government, including multiple levels of internal reviews. They claimed that a free copy of the judgment was received by the department on January 8, 2020, following which it was examined at various levels and a decision was made on January 24, 2020, to file an appeal. The file was then sent for legal review, leading to further delays.
Additionally, the appellants cited the COVID-19 pandemic as a primary reason for the delay, stating that work disruptions and lockdown restrictions resulted in further procedural setbacks. The appellants relied on the Supreme Court's order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, which extended the period of limitation in light of the pandemic.
The respondent, Brahmdeo Choudhary, opposed the condonation plea, contending that the delay was excessive and unjustified. He asserted that the appellants had failed to take timely steps and could not blame the pandemic, as substantial delay had already occurred before March 2020.
The High Court closely examined the chronology of events. It observed that the judgment was pronounced on October 16, 2019, in the presence of both parties. The limitation period for filing an LPA is 30 days from the date of receiving a certified copy. However, the appellants only applied for the certified copy on October 15, 2020—nearly a year after the judgment.
The Bench noted, "What prevented the applicants from applying for the certified copy of the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge immediately after it was pronounced on 16.10.2019 is not explained by the applicants."
The court further analysed the timeline and found that between October 16, 2019, and January 8, 2020, the appellants had not taken any action regarding filing an appeal. Even after receiving the free copy of the judgment, the decision to appeal was taken on January 24, 2020, yet no immediate steps were taken.
Regarding the pandemic, the Bench stated, "The period of limitation applicable to the instant case would be from 17.11.2019 to 14.03.2020, i.e., 119 days and there are good grounds to condone the said period of delay." However, it found that the appellants had been inactive for a long time before the pandemic began.
The court referred to Sagufa Ahmed & Others v. Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd. & Others (2021) 2 SCC 317, which clarified that the Supreme Court’s suo motu order extending limitation applied only to cases where the prescribed period of limitation had not already expired before March 15, 2020. Since the appellants had already delayed filing well before this date, they could not claim relief under the pandemic-related extensions.
The Bench also referred to V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd. & Others (2022) 2 SCC 244, which held that limitation periods that expired before March 15, 2020, could not be extended under the Supreme Court's suo motu orders. The court recorded, "Nothing prevented the appellants from filing the LPA within 30 days from 16.10.2019 or before 15.3.2020. But during this period, nothing substantial was done by the applicants in that regard."
Additionally, the court noted that the appellants took further time even after receiving the certified copy of the judgment in October 2020. The appeal was eventually filed on February 19, 2021, adding another four months of unexplained delay.
Based on the precedents and factual circumstances, the High Court held, "In the instant case, once the time starts running on 15.11.2019, it does not stop, and the total period of delay has to be taken as 120 days. During this period, the applicants have not shown sufficient diligence to take steps to file the LPA."
The court observed that the appellants had ample time before the pandemic to file their appeal but failed to do so. It stated that the delay was not sufficiently justified, and therefore, the plea for condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, could not be granted.
Accordingly the High Court dismissed the condonation application and, as a result, dismissed the Appeal.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellants: Mrs. Darshna Poddar Mishra, A.A.G.-1
For the Respondent: Mr. A.K. Sahani and Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocates
Case title: The State of Jharkhand & Anr. v. Brahmdeo Choudhary.
Case number: I.A. No.1136 of 2025 in L.P.A. No. 75 of 2021.
Bench: Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan
[Read/Download order]
