IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.617 of 2008 THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS Versus SURENDRA PRASAD SINGH ----------- For the appellants : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Junior Counsel to Government Pleader-II ------- P R E S E NT Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----- Dated, the 12th August, 2008 There is delay of two hundred seventy one days in filing the appeal. The appellants have made an application (I.A.No.4807/08) seeking for condonation of delay. 2. The following averments have been made in the application: “4. That it is humbly submitted that the requisition filed for certified copy on 27.2.07 and certified copy was got available on 5.4.07 and same was placed before the Director along with concerned file on 4.5.07. 5. That it is humbly submitted that on 5.9.07, a noting was to accord opinion of law department and procedure be stated to file L.P.A. before the Hon’ble High Court. 6. That it is humbly submitted here that on 13.9.07, concerned file sent to law deptt for necessary and thereafter, vide noting dated 14.9.07 file was sent to Advocate General of Bihar for legal opinion. 7. That it is humbly submitted here that legal opinion was given to file L.P.A. and accordingly file was returned back from the office of Advocate general on 1.10.07 to the Department. 8. That it is humbly submitted here that file was sent to the Government pleader no.2 in term with noting dated 25.10.07. It is stated here that the same file was not - 2 - received from the office of Advocate General to file L.P.A. and as such Govt. pleader no.2 not accept the said file on 2.11.07. 9. That it is humbly submitted here that by mistake in terms with noting dated 28.11.07 file again sent for legal opinion before Advocate General upon noting dated 1.12.07 of Advocate General as I do not understand why file has again be understood for opinion in regard to filing L.P.A.,L.R. expressed his sorry on 4.12.07. Thereafter, file was received in the office of Advocate General on 6.12.07 and thereafter file sent to concerned law officer and accordingly thereafter memo of appeal along with limitation petition has got ready being delayed of months for filing this L.P.A. 10. That since delay has been caused due to reason stated above which has not been deliberate laches and as such delay for filing memo of appeal may kindly be condoned.” 3. We are afraid, the aforesaid averments do not spell out sufficient cause. There is lack of diligence on the part of the concerned officials in proceeding with the matter. Although certified copy of the order was made available on 5th of April, 2007, the concerned authority took almost a month for placing the same before the Director Science and Technology. Moreover, the Director seems to have taken four months in seeking opinion from Law Department. Thus, the delay of five months remains unexplained. There is negligence at every stage. We are, thus, satisfied that the cause shown in the application does not constitute sufficient cause. The delay in filing the appeal does not deserve to be condoned. 4. Even if we condone the delay, on consideration of the matter on merit, we find that even otherwise there is no merit in the appeal. Consideration of the matter by the Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity. - 3 - 5. L.P.A. is, accordingly, dismissed. This disposes of application ( I.A.No.4807/08) as well. R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil