IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.906 of 2008 ---- Binod Kumar Singh son of late Kripa Sharan Singh, resident of village Utra, P.O. Madia, P.S. Chandi, Via Nursarai District Nalanda. ….. Petitioner/Appellant. Versus 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. 2. The Director General, C.R.P.F. North Block, New Delhi. 3. Inspector General, C.R.P.F., Bihar, Sector, Baily Road, Patna 4. The Commandant, C.R.P.F.,97 Bn, Group Centre, Gandhi Nagar, Gujrat. 5. The Add. D.I.G. C.R.P.F. Group Centre, C.R.P.F. Mokama Ghat, Patna. … Respondents/Respondents. ----------- For the appellant : Mr. Ram Hriday Prasad, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. Sudhir Singh, Assistant Solicitor General Mr. Sarvadeo Singh, Advocate ------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal -------- Dated, the 19th November, 2008. The appeal suffers from delay of one year two hundred forty nine days. An application (I.A.No.6745/2008) has been made for condonation thereof. 2. The order impugned in the appeal is dated 09th February, 2007. The appeal has been filed on 17th November, 2008. It is stated - 2 - that since the appellant was posted outside Bihar (i.e. Gujrat), he could not know about the dismissal of the writ petition. Due to death of his brother, he came to his village and then he went to the office of his counsel on 12th November, 2008, where he came to know that the writ petition has been dismissed on 09th February, 2007. 3. We are afraid, the grounds set out in the application are only make- believe which do not deserve acceptance. It is not that a constable in C.R.P.F working in Gujrat remains incommunicado. The petitioner has not disclosed about his family. He has also not stated that no communication was received from his advocate about the decision of the case at his village address. The date of death of his brother has also not been disclosed. The date of his visit to the village is also not stated. We find that the long delay of one year two hundred forty nine days is not at all explained much less sufficiently explained. 4. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay ((I.A.no.6745/2008) is rejected. 5. Since Letters Patent Appeal is barred by time and the application for condonation of delay has been rejected by us, the Letters Patent Appeal deserves to be dismissed as time barred and we order, accordingly. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil