IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.712 of 2008 BIJAY KUMAR YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the appellant: Mr. Manohar Prasad Singh 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 19th September, 2008 By means of this letters patent appeal the judgment and order dated 23rd March, 2007, passed by the single judge has been challenged. The appeal has been preferred on 15th May, 2008. According to the office report, there is delay of one year and 22 days in filing the appeal. 2. The appellant has made an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking the condonation of delay. The explanation set out in the application is that the appellant is a poor man and has no telephone connection and, therefore, he could not gather information regarding the dismissal of the writ petition. On receiving the information, he tried to manage the money for filing the appeal but, unfortunately, his mother became seriously ill and could not contact his lawyer but went for medical treatment of his mother. When the condition of his mother became normal he came to Patna and contacted his counsel Mr. Manohar Prasad Singh and as per his advice, process of 2 filing of the appeal started; judgment and order was obtained and then appeal was filed. 3. We are afraid, with all liberal attitude with which this application can be considered, the long delay of more than one year and twenty two days cannot be held to have been sufficiently explained. As a matter for fact, any application for condonation of delay could not be more vague and ambiguous than the present one. The date on which the appellant got information about the disposal of the writ petition has not been disclosed. The period of his mother’s illness and the nature of illness have also not been stated. The date on which he contacted Mr. Manohar Prasad Singh is not mentioned. There are no medical documents on record in support of his mother’s illness. 4. The delay having remained unexplained , we are left with no choice but to dismiss the application for condonation of delay. 5. IA. No.5541 of 2008 is , accordingly, rejected. 6. Since, the appeal is barred by time and the application for condonation of delay has been rejected by us, the appeal has to be dismissed as time barred. We order accordingly. R. M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Neyaz/