IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.606 of 2008 THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS Versus MAMTA HARAN RAM ----------- For the appellants: Mr. Arvind Ujjwal, SC XI Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, JC For the respondents : None P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Ravi Ranjan --- Dated, the 11th August, 2008 The appeal is directed against the order dated 18th August, 2006. The appeal has been preferred on 23rd July, 2008. According to the office report, the appeal suffers from delay of more than two years. The appellants have made an application (IA. No.4760 of 2008) for condonation of delay, wherein the following averments have been made: “That the aforesaid judgment and order has been delivered on 18.08.2006 and the limitation for filing letters patent appeal expires on 18.09.2006. That it is submitted that after having the knowledge of this order and seeing its consequence on State the Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur sent letter to Inspector General of Police (P) Bihar, Patna vide memo no.200/Legal dated 27.10.2006 for proper and needful direction. That it is submitted that accordingly Police headquarters Bihar, Patna, considering entire aspect of the case directed the Superintendent of police, Bhagalpur to file Letters Patent Appeal vide Fax Memo no.5907/P-2 dated 11.11.2006. That it is stated that after getting direction from the Police Headquarters this file was sent to the Department 2 and the same was endorsed to the Law Department. The Law Department send the file to the Advocate General for legal opinion and the same was endorsed to the concerned law Officer. Thereafter, the file was returned to the administrative department through the law department and finally this memo of appeal is being filed along with limitation petition. That it is apparent from the facts stated above that the delay in filing this letters patent appeal is not deliberately and knowingly rather it has been caused due to obtain relevant papers, requisites and inter communication of file for obtaining necessary direction/opinions/ sanction/requisites of the same from the concerned department as well as offices.” 2. That the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order dated 18th August, 2006 was received on that day itself is not in dispute. 3. According to the statement made in the application, the Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur sent a letter to the Inspector General of Police on 27th October, 2006 for the needful direction. By communication dated 11th November, 2006, the Police Headquarter, Bihar, Patna directed the Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur to file letters patent appeal. It is stated that thereafter the department endorsed the file to the Law Department; the Law Department sent the papers to the Advocate General for legal opinion, which was sent to the concerned Law Officer; the file was returned to the Administrative Department through the Law Department and finally the memo of appeal has been filed along with limitation petition. 3 4. As to why Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur took more than two months in writing letter to the Inspector General of Police for seeking direction is not made clear in the application. The police Headquarters are said to have directed to file the letters patent appeal vide communication dated 11th November, 2006 but for the period thereafter, there is no specific explanation. As to on what date file was sent by the Police Department to the Law Department is not at all indicated. The date on which the Law Department forwarded the papers to the Advocate General for legal opinion is anybody’s guess. On which date, the Advocate General sent the file to the concerned Law Officer is not disclosed. When was the file returned by the Administrative Department is again not disclosed. 5. With, all our liberal approach, in consideration of the application like this, we find that the application does not spell out sufficient cause at all justifying condonation of delay of more than two years. We are, thus, constrained to reject the application for condonation of delay. 6. Since the appeal is barred by time and the application for condonation of delay has been rejected, this appeal has to be dismissed as time barred and we order accordingly. R. M. Lodha, CJ. Neyaz/ Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. 4 Neyaz/-