State of Bihar & Ors. Vs Deo Kumar Singh & Ors. (Patna High Court)
The Patna High Court, in State of Bihar & Ors. Vs Deo Kumar Singh & Ors., dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the Bihar Government after a delay of 367 days, finding that the explanation offered for condonation was insufficient. The appeal arose from an order dated 22 October 2013 passed by a learned Single Judge. The State sought condonation through I.A. No. 3757 of 2015, but the Court observed that the application itself did not indicate reasons for the delay. The explanation subsequently provided in a supplementary affidavit referred to the time consumed in obtaining legal opinions and collecting relevant papers.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi and Justice Nilu Agrawal held that a period of nearly one year for obtaining legal advice and gathering documents was excessive for State authorities expected to remain vigilant in defending their legal rights. The Court expressly declined to grant indulgence for bureaucratic delay and found the reasoning offered by the State unsatisfactory. Consequently, it rejected both the limitation application and the Letters Patent Appeal.
The order was subsequently challenged before the Supreme Court in State of Bihar & Ors. Vs Deo Kumar Singh & Ors., SLP (Civil) Diary No. 13348/2019. On 9 May 2019, the Supreme Court refused to condone the further delay of 728 days and dismissed the Special Leave Petition with costs of ₹20,000, recoverable from the officers responsible for the delay.
Related Reading: The matter subsequently reached the Supreme Court, which imposed costs of ₹20,000 on the Bihar Government in proceedings involving a 728-day delay in filing the Special Leave Petition. Read: Supreme Court Imposes ₹20,000 Costs for 728-Day Delay in Bihar Government’s SLP.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PATNA HIGH COURT
In the condonation application, which is I.A. No.3757 of 2015, where there was a delay of 367 days in moving the appeal, no reasons were indicated therein. The order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 22.10.2013 and the reason for delay of almost one year has been explained in the supplementary affidavit as part of the process of taking legal opinion and gathering the papers.
A year time for such exercise is too long for any State authorities, if they are vigilant to defend their rights. This Court will not give any indulgence to the State for bureaucratic delay in moving the appeal.
The limitation petition is rejected so is the appeal since the Court is not satisfied with the rational and reasoning offered by way of explanation.
