IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.543 of 2008 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. Executive Engineer, Poorvi Koshi Tatbandh Pramandal, Supaul. 3. Superintending Engineer, Poorvi Koshi Tatbandh, Anchal, Saharsa. 4. Chief Engineer, Jal Sansadhan, Birpur, Supaul. 5. Collector, Supaul. 6. Finance Commissioner, Pension, Bihar, Patna. 7. District Provident Fund Officer, Sahsara. … … Respondents-Appellants Versus 1. Kailash Prasad Singh, son of Late Parmanand Singh, Resident of Village-Teghra, P.S.-Simri Bakhtiyarpur, District-Saharsa. …. Petitioner-Respondent 1st Party 2. Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. …. Respondent-Respondent 2nd Party. ----------- For the Appellants : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Jha, Junior Counsel to Standing Counsel-IX For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Satish Chandra Jha-3, Advocate -------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --------- Dated, the 10th December, 2008. Letters Patent Appeal suffers from delay of 101 days. For condonation thereof, I.A. No. 4287 of 2008 has been made. The government counsel would submit that the delay occurred because of procedural formalities. 2. The appeal has been preferred by the State government and its functionaries aggrieved by the order dated 13th March, 2007. It was filed on 23rd May, 2008. The explanation given in the application - 2 - is that upon receipt of the copy of the order, office of the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Birpur, sought guidelines from the department vide its letter dated 5th May, 2007. The department is said to have sought comments from the Chief Engineer, Birpur with regard to filing of the appeal on 13th June, 2007. It is stated that from the office of the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Birpur, no comments were received and vide letter dated 1st August, 2007, a letter came from the said office seeking guidelines with regard to compliance of the order dated 13th March, 2007. A further letter is said to have been written to the Chief Engineer on 9th August, 2007. Yet no comments were received and the department examined the matter itself. Then a letter dated 5th September, 2007 was received from the office of the Chief Engineer for taking a decision to file appeal. After consultation, grounds for filing appeal were prepared and on 8th January, 2008, it was decided to seek opinion from the Advocate General. The Advocate General is said to have entrusted the file to Standing Counsel IX on 23rd January, 2008. The file was returned to the Water Resources Department on 4th April, 2008 and the approval of the department was sought and thereafter, the appeal was prepared and filed on 23rd May, 2008. The narration of the aforesaid facts would show that there has been total lack of diligence on the part of the office of the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department in handling the matter. Although the administrative department sought comments from the Chief Engineer with regard to the filing of the appeal, it did not - 3 - even respond to the communications sent by the administrative department. Except writing few letters, the office of the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department did not deal with the matter diligently nor the administrative department seems to have shown concern knowing it fully well that there is limitation for filing the appeal. It was almost after eight months that the decision was taken to seek opinion of the Advocate General. Much before that, limitation for filing appeal had already expired. All in all, the case speaks of total negligence. 3. The application for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 4287 of 2008) is, accordingly, rejected. Since Letters Patent Appeal is barred by time and application for condonation of delay has been rejected, the appeal has to be dismissed as time barred and we order accordingly. Since appeal has been dismissed as time barred, application for interim relief does not survive. I.A. No. 4286 of 2008 is also rejected. R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Anil/