Authority: High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi

Order Date: 13 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: The State of Jharkhand, Deputy Commissioner Deoghar, Child Development Project Officer (Sarwan, Deoghar) and Krishna Mohan Yadav (Head Master In Charge, Rajkiyakrit Madhaya Vidyalaya, Sahara, Jarmundi, Dumka) as appellants; Sakila Banu (wife of Safique Ansari, aged ~45, resident of Village‑Chandanpura, Dumariya Panchayat, Binjha, Sonaraithari, District‑Deoghar) as respondent.
  • Proceedings: IA No. 6290 of 2025 / L.P.A. No. 266 of 2025 filed to seek condonation of a 559‑day delay in filing an appeal against the judgment dated 09‑08‑2023 (Single Judge, W.P. (S) No. 6866 of 2019).
  • Counsel: For the appellants – Mr Manish Kumar, Sr. S.C.–II; for the respondent – Mr S.K. Deo, Advocate.
  • Timeline of alleged delays:
  • Impugned order passed on 09‑08‑2023.
  • First step recorded on 18‑12‑2023 (opinion sought from D.D.C. for filing LPA) – a three‑month gap unexplained.
  • Decision to prefer LPA taken on 19‑02‑2024 after discussion with District Social Welfare Officer and G.P.; subsequent two‑month inactivity before any action.
  • Advocate General’s fresh letter dated 26‑04‑2024; again over two months elapsed before case file allotted to Sr. S.C. II on 03‑07‑2024.
  • Grounds of appeal prepared and transmitted for approval on 24‑07‑2024, but LPA filed only on 19‑03‑2025 – an eight‑month unexplained interval.
  • Respondent’s counter‑affidavit highlighted that the decision to file LPA was made on 19‑02‑2024, yet filing occurred on 19‑03‑2025, a hiatus of more than one year.
  • Legal precedents cited:
  • Postmaster General and Others v. Living Media India Ltd (2012) 3 SCC 563 – government departments cannot claim extended limitation periods; mere file movement dates insufficient.
  • Union of India & Anr. vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (2024) SCC OnLine SC 489 – status of litigant immaterial; delay must be justified with bona‑fides.
  • Shivamma (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors. (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1969 – “administrative lethargy and laxity” not a sufficient ground for condonation.
  • Court’s observations: The IA merely lists routine departmental steps without explaining why the matter remained dormant for extended periods; casual averments do not constitute sufficient cause. The Supreme Court’s doctrine that limitation periods apply equally to the State was reiterated.

Final Outcome

  • The Court found no sufficient cause for the 559‑day delay and dismissed the IA seeking condonation.
  • Consequently, the accompanying appeal and the IA were disposed of; no costs were awarded.

Topics: Condensation of Delay, Judicial Procedure