IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.690 of 2008 5 20.7.2009 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Commissioner, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 3. The Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 4. The Secretary, Finance (National Savings) Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 5. The District Magistrate, Gaya ..... Appellants/ Respondents VERSUS Arjun Prasad Rajak, son of Late Dwarika Prasad Rajak, resident of mohalla Ram Nagar, Nawada, Police Station Nawada, District Nawada ..... Respondent/ Petitioner ------- Heard learned counsel for the appellants, the State of Bihar and learned counsel for the respondent in respect of IA No.3605 of 2009. The prayer made on behalf of respondent in this IA is to dismiss this Letters Patent Appeal as barred by limitation on account of failure of the appellants to comply with the order of the Supreme Court dated 23.2.2009 passed in Civil Appeal No.1159 of 2009. It appears that earlier this Court had declined to condone the delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal and, therefore, the appeal was rejected. The appellants 2 preferred appeal before the Apex Court in which leave was granted and appeal was allowed on 23.2.2009. The Hon’ble Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal subject to the appellants paying cost of Rs.5000/- to the respondent within six weeks from 23.2.2009. The last date for payment of Rs.5000/- was 6.4.2009. According to affidavit filed on behalf of appellants as well as a reply to the aforesaid IA, it appears that a bank draft of Rs.5000/- dated 30.3.2009 payable to Arjun Pd. Rajak, the respondent in this appeal, was made ready. The case of the respondent is that the said bank draft was never given to him and he has never refused to accept that bank draft. On the other hand, case of the appellants is that on 27.3.2009, the respondent came to enquire about Rs.5000/- payable to him but by that date the bank draft was not ready and, therefore, the respondent was asked to come again after one week but he expressed his difficulties and represented that he would come after 10 days to collect the draft but he never came back and hence, the bank draft was, for the first time, sent to him 3 through Speed Post on 22.4.2009, admittedly after 6.4.2009. The case of the appellants is that the letter containing the bank draft was initially accepted by family members of the respondent but subsequently, it was returned by someone else through post claiming that due to mistake the delivery was accepted by some other person. On receiving the bank draft back through post, the same was again sent to the respondent by registered post which was not accepted and it came back. According to respondent, he went to make enquiry about the amount of Rs.5000/- and to receive the same in the Department on 27.3.2009 when he was told that the bank draft was not ready and again on 6.4.2009 and 13.4.2009 but on these two later dates also, his applications contained in Annexures C and D were received by some employees of the Department but he was not paid Rs.5000/- by any means. The letters contained in Annexures C and D to the aforesaid IA have been contested and denied by the appellants. On the basis of materials on record, we find that although a bank draft dated 30.3.2009 was prepared for 4 payment of Rs.5000/- to the respondent before the expiry of six weeks time which was to expire on 6.4.2009, there is no reliable material to show that the aforesaid amount of Rs.5000/- was tendered or offered to the respondent on or before 6.4.2009, the last date fixed for payment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In view of aforesaid discussion and finding, we have difficulty in holding that the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court contained in order dated 23.2.2009 has been carried out by the appellants. The condonation of delay was subject to payment of cost of Rs.5000/- within the time fixed by the Apex Court. Since we cannot hold that the amount of Rs.5000/- was paid to the respondent within the time fixed or even that it was tendered to respondent within six weeks, we are left with no choice but to allow the IA and hold that the Letters Patent Appeal is barred by limitation. It is accordingly dismissed. (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ) (Anjana Prakash, J.) sk