IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.840 of 2007 ------ Umesh Kumar Verma S/O Shri Binod Kumar Verma, Resident of Village-Dighwara, P.S.-Dighwara, District-Chapra. Petitioner no.2- Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. Inspector General of Police, Darbhanga. 4. Inspector General of Police, Bhagalpur. 5. Director General of Police, Human Rights, Bihar, Patna. 6. Additional Inspector General of Police, (Personnel) Old Secretariat, Bihar, Patna. 7. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Darbhanga. 8. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Munger. 9. Superintendent of Police, Madhubani. 10. Superintendent of Police, Samastipur. 11. Superintendent of Police, Jamui. 12. Superintendent of Police, Darbhanga. 13. Superintendent of Police, Gaya. 14. Superintendent of Police, Magadh Range, Gaya. 15. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Head Quarter, Patna Respondents…. Respondents 16. Prem Chandra Jha son of Sri Kishore Chandra Jha @ Kishore Jha, resident of village – Chandpur, P.S. Benipatti, terminated as Constable from Samastipur …….. petitioner no.1 – Respondent 17. Kumar Raju son of Sri Kameshwar Pd. Singh, resident of village Seikhpuradih, P.S. Amnour, District – Chapra ……..Petitioner no. 3- Respondent 18.Arun Kumar Jha S/o Sri Sita Ram Jha, resident of Village Pator, P.S. Pator, District – Darbhanga. Terminated as constable from Darbhanga …. Petitioner no. 4- Respondent ----------- For the appellant : Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate For the respondents : None ------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal - 2 - ------ Dated, the 12th November, 2008 At the out set, Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate requested for adjournment on the ground that the counsel for the appellant was out of station. 2. From the proceedings, we find that on 21st October, 2008, adjournment was sought by the advocate for the appellant. The prayer for adjournment is, thus, unreasonable. We asked Mr. Vijay kumar, Advocate to argue the application for condonation of delay. He, however, submitted that he did not have brief papers. Despite want of assistance from the advocate, we perused the application for condonation of delay. 3. In the application, it is stated that after disposal of writ petition vide order dated 5th February, 2007, the appellant went back to his native place and after some time, consulted his local advocate who gave impression that appeal would lie before the Supreme Court from the order passed by the Single judge. It is further stated that upon having come to know of this, the appellant became nervous and hopeless. Then he came to Patna on 6th August, 2007 and consulted his advocate in the High Court who advised for intra court appeal. It is stated that because of this the delay occurred. 4. The appeal suffers from delay of 214 days. Upon careful consideration of the application, we are of the considered view, that a make-believe ground has been set up which, hardly merits acceptance. - 3 - The name of the local advocate whom the appellant consulted, has not been given. The date on which he consulted the local advocate has also not been given. No reason has been given as to why he waited for six months to come to Patna for consulting his advocate on 6th August, 2007. We are not at all convinced by the cause set up in the application for condonation of delay. 5. Application for condonation of delay is, accordingly, dismissed. 6. Since application for condonation of delay (I.A. no. 5806 of 2007) has been dismissed, L.P.A. has to be dismissed as time barred and is dismissed accordingly. R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Anil