IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.717 of 2008 THE STATE OF BIHAR Versus PRABHABATI DEVI & ORS ----------- For the appellant: Mr. Sunil Kumar Karn For the respondents : None --- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --- Dated, the 12th September, 2008 Letters patent appeal suffers from delay of more than one year and for condonation thereof, an application (IA. No.5569 of 2008) has been made. It transpires from the application that the concerned department was informed of the order dated 27th July, 2007, on 6th August, 2007. An application for obtaining the certified copy of the order was made on 13th August, 2007 and it was made available on 3rd September, 2007. The concerned file is said to have been forwarded to the office of the Director, Animal Husbandry Department, on 25th September, 2007, who advised to seek opinion whether the letters patent appeal deserves to be filed from the impugned order. The file was sent to the office of the Deputy Secretary, Cell, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Cell, on 5th October, 2007, who forwarded the file to the office of the Joint Director with his comments dated 8th October, 2007. The Joint Director forwarded the file to the Principal Secretary on 6th 2 December, 2007, who after making comments on the file sent the file seeking opinion to the Law Department on 18th December, 2007 . The Law Department sent the file to the office of the Advocate General for recording opinion on 24th December, 2007 and then file was endorsed to the Additional Advocate General - VI on 25th December, 2007. The Additional Advocate General – VI gave his opinion and returned the file to the Advocate General on 22nd January, 2008. The Advocate General differed with the opinion and he after recording his opinion sent the file to the department on 4th February, 2008. The Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry Department, is said to have returned the file to the office of the Advocate General for re-consideration of the matter and to record his opinion a fresh on 15th February, 2008. The Advocate General recorded his opinion and returned the file to the Law Department on 24th April, 2008, which was received by the department on 25th April, 2008 and then again file travelled to the Principal Secretary, who sent the file to the Law Department and then the appeal has been filed on 27th July, 2008. 2. The state government has full-fledged law department and large number of law officers, who are well aware of the law of limitation, which prescribes 30 days for filing letters patent appeal but despite that the matter has been dealt with by all concerned at their pleasure and leisure . It is time that the state 3 being impersonal body, decision making process involves multiple heads and the matter needs to be examined at various level but that does not mean that it should not be done swiftly. 3. It transpires that even after the certified copy was made available on 3rd September, 2007, three months time were taken for obtaining opinion of the Advocate General and then that opinion was not accepted and the file was sent back to the Advocate General for re-consideration. The final opinion was given by the Advocate General on 24th April, 2008 and although by that time limitation had already expired, no urgency was shown and more than three months were taken thereafter for filing the appeal. 4. We are afraid, the case reflects gross negligence on the part of the authorities/ officials who dealt with the matter as if law of limitation is not applicable to state appeals. 5. Since long delay of more than one year is not sufficiently explained, despite all liberal and pragmatic approach, we find it difficult to condone the delay. 6. Even otherwise, upon perusal of the impugned order, on merits also we find that the order of the single judge does not suffer from any infirmity justifying interference by us. 7. Since the appeal is barred by time and the application for condonation of delay does not deserve to be granted, we are constrained to dismiss the application (I.A. No.5569 of 4 2008) and the appeal. Appeal having been dismissed, the application for interim relief does not survive. Consequently, I.A. No.5570 of 2008 also stands rejected . R. M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Neyaz/