IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.365 of 2009 KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN Versus SRI YATRA PRASAD SINGH & ORS ----------- 5. 6-Jul-09 Heard the parties in the matter of limitation. After going through the averments in the limitation petition, it appears that vague allegations have been levelled against the earlier counsel that he did not communicate the order to the appellant but in spite of that it is admitted that the impugned order under appeal dated 11.7.2009 was communicated to the appellant by the office of the Court through Memo No.9241 dated 6.10.2008. The averment that it was received in the month of December, 2008 i.e. after about two months does not inspire confidence and it is not supported by any documents. Further, even if the appellant got knowledge in December, 2008, instead of taking steps to file the appeal within 30 days, as per limitation it has been filed on 31.3.2009. We do not find the explanation for delay to be sufficient and bona fide. In fact, perusal of the order under appeal shows that no relief was granted against the appellant and only a clarification sought by the writ petitioner from the State was recorded in the order 2 under appeal and that probably was the reason why appellant did not decide to prefer an appeal at the earliest. In the facts of the case, the prayer to condone limitation is rejected. As a consequence, the appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) (Anjana Prakash,J.)