IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.328 of 2008 THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS Versus SHIV NARAYAN HARIJAN &ORS ----------- 2. 1.5.2008 Reg: I.A.No.2559 of 2008 This application has been filed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. J.C. to G.A.IV, appears on behalf of the appellants. According to the Stamp Reporter, the appeal is barred by limitation of 2 years 151 days. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 28.10.2005 passed in C.W.J.C.No.3035 of 2004. According to the appellants’ own showing, the copy of the impugned order was received on 22.11.2005 and thereafter the matter was examined by the department and claim of the writ petitioner-respondent was rejected by order dated 23.1.2006. It seems that writ petitioner filed contempt application alleging non-compliance of the order of the Court and in the said contempt application show cause on behalf of the appellants was prepared and affidavit sworn on 6.4.2007. Thereafter according to the appellant- Commissioner-cum- Secretary of the department deemed necessary to file Letters Patent Appeal and for that purpose issued necessary directions on 10.5.2007. What had happened thereafter is not stated and what is mentioned is that thereafter the record was made 2 available to the Office of the Advocate General on 9.1.2008. The Advocate General endorsed the file to the Government Advocate on 11.1.2008 and the appeal was filed on 24.3.2008. Thus, there is no explanation at all as to why the appellant when received the order on 21.11.2005, the decision to file the appeal was taken by the Commissioner-cum- Secretary of the department on 10.5.2007. It seems that in order to defend in the contempt proceeding the appellant had decided to file the appeal on 10.5.2007 against the order dated 28.10.2005. There is further no explanation as to why the appeal was not filed immediately, when the Commissioner-cum- Secretary issued instruction on 10.5.2007 to file the appeal. According to the appellants themselves, the record was made available to the Advocate General on 9.1.2008 i.e.after about eight months but why? There is no whisper in this regard. Thereafter also the appellant had chosen to file the appeal not immediately thereafter but on 24.3.2008, but there is no explanation for this delay. Ordinarily we are liberal in condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Even if we take a liberal and lenient view, the appellants having not shown sufficient cause for filing the appeal after 2 years 151 days. We are of the opinion that any other view will tanta- mount to striking down the law of limitation itself. Accordingly, the prayer for condoning the delay is 3 rejected and the appeal being barred by limitation stands dismissed. (Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, ACJ) (Jayanandan Singh, J.) Narendra/