IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2478 of 2009 Triloki Singh Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 3/ 07/07/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was subjected to a departmental proceeding whereafter final orders of punishment were passed against him on 17.11.2005. The findings were returned against him. He questioned it in an appeal filed after three years. The appellate order dated 25.11.2008 notices that there was no explanation to the satisfaction of the Court for the inordinate delay in preferring the appeal. Even in the writ application no explanation has been given explaining the delay of three years in preferring the appeal. Mere filing of an application for condoning the delay under Section-5 of the Limitation Act does not ipso facto require condonation. Sufficient cause for the purpose has to be shown to the satisfaction of the authority concerned. If on materials placed before the authority it was not satisfied of sufficiency of the cause shown for condoning the delay, it being a discretionary order, cannot lightly be interfered with by the Writ 2 Court. Merely because the Writ Court may exercise powers of judicial review, and a different view on the facts may be possible shall not be sufficient justification for the Writ Court to upset what is otherwise a considered order. Reference may usefully be made to AIR 1962 S.C. 361 (Ramlal & Rewa Coalfields Ltd) at paragraph- 12 as follows:- “12. It is, however, necessary to emphasise that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the court by Section 5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condoning delay has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the court may regard as relevant. It cannot justify an enquiry as to why the party was sitting idle during all the time available to it.” No ground has been urged in the writ petition of any procedural irregularity in the departmental 3 proceeding causing prejudice to the petitioner when he otherwise contested the matter. The writ application is dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)