IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.525 of 2008 THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS Versus HRIDAYAL KUMAR & ORS ----------- For the appellants : Mr. P.K.Shahi, AG Mr.S.C. Mishra, JC to GA-V For the respondents: Mr.Sanjeet Kr. Sinha Mr. Sanjay Pandey --- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --- Dated, the 17th July, 2008 This appeal suffers from delay of 673 days. For condonation thereof an application (IA. No.4092 of 2008) has been made. 2. The delay has been sought to be explained thus; after receipt of the copy of the order dated 9th August, 2006 on 18th August, 2006, the file was put up before the Section Officer on 23rd August, 2006 who forwarded the file to the Deputy Secretary on 24th Augst, 2006. The file was put up before the Deputy Secretary of the Department on 25th August, 2006 who directed to seek opinion of the Law Department. On 31st August, 2006 the file was sent to the Law Department. The Law Secretary endorsed the file to the Advocate General for his 2 opinion on 1st September, 2006. The Advocate General returned the file to the Law Department after recording his opinion on 26th September, 2006. The Law Department returned the file to the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department on 5th October, 2006. The Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department decided to file a petition for modification of the order dated 9th August, 2006. Consequently, the file was sent by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department to the Law Department on 13th November, 2006. The Law Department forwarded it to the Advocate General on 14th November, 2006 and a modification petition was filed on 19th December, 2006. The modification petition was dismissed on 27th February, 2007 of which information was received by the department on 2nd March, 2007. Again the file was put up by the dealing Assistant to the Section Officer on 2nd March, 2007 to place it before the Under Secretary on 6th March, 2007. It is stated that thereafter the file was processed at different level and it was decided to seek opinion of the Law Department with regard to filing of letters patent appeal. The Secretary of the Department sent the file to the Law Department on 17th May, 2007 and the Law Department forwarded it to the Advocate General for his opinion and on 30th May, 2007 the Advocate General returned 3 the file to the Law Department which was sent to the Administrative Department on 4th June, 2007. The note was prepared by the Under Secretary of the Department and placed before the Deputy Secretary and then before the Secretary on 15th June, 2007. The Secretary directed on 20th June, 2007 to proceed as per the opinion of the Advocate General. On 26th June, 2007 the Under Secretary placed the file before the Deputy Secretary for seeking an order of the Chief Minister. The Secretary of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department forwarded the file to the Chief Minister’s Secretariat on 29th June, 2007. The Chief Minister directed to re-examine the facts on 21st August, 2007 and , accordingly, the Secretary requested the Chief Secretary to record his opinion on 27th September, 2007. The Chief Secretary requested the Advocate General on 28th September, 2007 to re-record his opinion. The Advocate General recorded his opinion on 8th October, 2007 and it was placed before the Chief Secretary on 9th October, 2007. The file was again sent to the Chief Minister’s Secretariat and it was directed to proceed further in terms of opinion of the Advocate General on 21st January, 2008. With this the Department decided to file the letters patent appeal; statement of facts was prepared and file was sent to the Law Department on 22nd 4 February, 2008. The Law Department sent the file on 27th February, 2008 to the office of the Advocate General, who endorsed the file to the concerned Government Advocate on 28th February, 2008. The Government Advocate examined the record and requested the Administrative Reforms Department to furnish the information and copies of the orders. The Department made the information available on 28th March, 2008 to the office of the Government Advocate. The advocates abstained from the work from 31st March, 2008 to 9th April, 2008 and thereafter the appeal was prepared and filed on 23rd May, 2008. 3. We are afraid, with all these jugglery of dates the long delay of 673 days is not sufficiently explained. Even if the time taken until the decision in the modification petition is excluded which was on 27th February, 2007, we find that thereafter the concerned officers, authorities and the officials dealt with the matter at their own leisure and pleasure. There are many holes and gaps in the explanation; such as period from 29th June, 2007 to 21st August, 2007, then again the period from 9th October, 2007 to 21st January, 2008 and from 28th February, 2008 to 28th March, 2008. There are other gaps as well. 4. With all over liberal approach in consideration 5 of the application for condonation of delay on behalf of the Government and its functionaries and that we always do, we find that the sufficient cause for the entire delay of 673 days has not been shown. 5. We are satisfied that the application for condonation of delay does not deserve to be granted. 6. The appeal being time barred, is liable to be rejected as such and we order accordingly. 7. Since the limitation application has been rejected by us and the appeal is dismissed as time barred, we refrain from dealing with the office objection about the maintainability of this appeal as it is unnecessary. R.M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Neyaz/