IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No. 1658 of 2010 In CWJC No. 1899 of 2001 With I.A. No. 9119 of 2010 =================================================== Narendra Singh, son of Sri Yadunath Saran Singh, R/o Mohalla – Rajendra Nagar, P.S. Kadam Kuan, Distt. – Patna …… Petitioner / ……………………………………………………………….. Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Urban Development Dept., Govt. of Bihar, Patna, 2. The Secretary, Urban Development Dept., Govt. of Bihar, Patna, 3. The Secretary, Co-operative Dept., Govt. of Bihar, Patna, 4. The Bihar State Co-operative Marketing Union through its Administrator, Bihar, Patna, 5. The Patna Regional Development Authority through its Vice Chairman, Bihar, Patna, 6. The Gaya Regional Development Authority through its Vice Chairman, Gaya, 7. Sri Narayan Yadav, son of not known to the petitioner, Urban Development Dept., Govt. of Bihar, Patna ... Respondents / Respondents, 8. Surendra Kumar, son of Dudheshwar Prasad, R/o Village – Titai Bigha, P.S. Makhdumpur, Dist. Jehanabad … Petitioner / Respondent. =================================================== APPEARANCE For the appellant: Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vijay Bharti, Advocate. For the State: Mr. Satyabir Bharti, AC to AAG III. =================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2 4. 16.11.2010. Re. I.A. No. 9119 of 2010. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 1402 days occurred in filing the letters patent appeal. The common judgment and order under challenge in CWJC No. 1899 of 2001 was passed on 26.07.2006. Similar writ petitions filed by similarly situated persons were also dismissed by the impugned common judgment and order dated 26.07.2006. The writ petitioners in the other writ petitions challenged the impugned judgment in group of letters patent appeals. The said group of letters patent appeals were heard and decided by the common judgment and order dated 19.04.2010 (Coram : Shiva Kirti Singh, J & Chandra Mohan Prasad, J). The Bench allowed the group of appeals and directed “If on account of the judgment and orders under appeals any of the appellants whose appeals have been allowed have been repatriated from their posts under the State or dismissed from service, such impugned or consequential orders of repatriation or dismissal shall stand quashed and they shall be reinstated and allowed to work with all consequential benefits”. After the above judgment dated 19.04.2010, the present appellant - the writ petitioner in CWJC No. 1899 of 2001 filed the present appeal on 08.10.2010 after a delay of 1402 days. Learned Advocate Mr Y.V. Giri has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that the appellant was 3 similarly situated as the other appellants, who have succeeded before the Bench. On account of the judgment of the Bench they have been transferred to the State service whereas the appellant has to continue under the service of the Bihar State Co-operative Marketing Union Limited. Mr. Giri has submitted that though the appellant is similarly situated, he could not prefer appeal within the period of limitation as his wife was suffering from serious ailments and the appellant could not attend to his normal duty. In support of the submission Mr Giri has relied upon the supplementary affidavit and the medical reports annexed therewith. We have perused the supplementary affidavit and the medical reports. True, the wife of the appellant was suffering from uterine fibroid and she had to undergo several tests over a period of time. She also underwent hysterectomy. However, there was nothing so serious that would detain the appellant from attending his normal duty. Besides, the appellant was also impleaded as party respondent in LPA No. 680 of 2006 preferred by one Surendra Kumar. The appellant was, thus, aware of the appeals preferred by the other similarly situated persons. Had he been vigilant he would have preferred substantive appeal or would have joined as appellant in the above referred LPA No. 680 of 2006. It is clear that though the appellant was aware of the judgment delivered against him and the appeals preferred before the Bench, he was watching the proceedings till the appeals were allowed by the Bench. The present appeal filed after a gross delay is 4 clearly an afterthought. We are not satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for delaying the matter thus far. For the aforesaid reasons, the limitation application is rejected. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal No. 1658 of 2010 stands disposed of. Dilip ( R.M. Doshit, CJ ) ( Jyoti Saran, J )