IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.647 of 2008 THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS Versus YOGENDRA PRASAD SINGH ----------- For the appellants: Mr. Arvind Ujjwal, SC – XI Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, JC For the respondent : None P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --- Dated, the 21st August, 2008 The appeal suffers from delay of three hundred and fourteen days. For condonation thereof, an application (IA. No.5040 of 2008) has been made. 2. Although, movement of file has been sought to be explained from one authority to the other, but we find that there has been total lack of diligence and urgency in dealing with the matter In a matter of filing appeal, where limitation is prescribed, the matter has to be dealt with swiftly. 3. The impugned judgment is dated 22nd August, 2007. It is stated that it was received in the concerned department on 28th September, 2007. The date on which the application for obtaining the certified copy was made, is not stated. On what date the certified copy was received, is again not stated. Although, the 2 copy of the impugned order was received in the department on 28th September, 2007, the file was sent to the Under Secretary almost after three weeks i.e. on 17th October, 2007. The Under Secretary sat over the file for four months for the reasons best known to him. It was on 21st February, 2008 that he endorsed the file to the Law Department. For more than a month, however, the file tossed from one authority to the other in the department and after more than a month on 26th March, 2008, the file was endorsed to the Law Department. The Law Department endorsed the file to the Advocate General, who endorsed the file to the Standing Counsel and the legal opinion was recorded on 15th April, 2008. There is no explanation as to why it took about 19 days in giving legal opinion by the Standing Counsel when he knew that the limitation in filing the appeal has expired. Even thereafter the matter did not move with urgency. The file tossed between the Administrative Department and the Law Department and more than three months took thereafter in filing the appeal. 4. If in a matter of appeal, where limitation is prescribed in law, the concerned authorities deals with the matter at their leisure and pleasure, we are afraid, they do so at the peril of the State and the cause cannot be treated to be sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 5. The delay of three hundred and fourteen days is, 3 thus, not explained and the application for condonation of delay is liable to be rejected. We order accordingly. 6. Even if we, for the sake of argument, assume that the cause of delay has been made out, on merit, we find that there is no case at all. The single judge has considered the matter in right perspective and no error can be said to have been committed in holding that original writ petitioner (respondent herein) is entitled to be promoted to the post of Executive Engineer from the date his junior came to be promoted. 7. Letters patent appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. This disposes of IA. No.5040 of 2008 as well. R. M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Neyaz/-