IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.544 of 2008 THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS Versus SHASHI BHUSHAN CHOUDHARY & ORS ----------- For the appellants : Mr. Hari Shankar Roy, Junior counsel to Additional Advocate General-II ------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal Dated, the 24th July, 2008. The appeal suffers from delay of 339 days and for condonation thereof, an application ( I.A.No.4320/2008) has been made. The explanation that has been put forth in the application for condonation of delay is that during the course of compliance of the order dated 19th July, 2007, it transpired that the impugned order suffered from illegality and needed to be challenged in appeal. Accordingly, the proposal for filing LPA was made on 6th of November, 2007. Thereafter the file was moved in the administrative department up to higher authorities for sanction and endorsed to the Advocate General on 13th May, 2008. The High Court was closed from 23rd of May, 2008 and reopened on 23rd of June, 2008. The documents were supplied by the department on 28th June, 2008 and then appeal was drafted and filed. 2. Firstly, there is no worthy explanation for the period from 06th of November, 2007 to 13th of May, 2008 except a vague and - 2 - general statement that file was moved in the administrative department up to the higher authority for sanction. For want of any specific averments with regard to movement of file in the department, the explanation hardly merits acceptance. Secondly, it transpires that the Government had already decided to implement the order dated 19th of July, 2007 as soon as the representation was received from the original petitioners. If for any reason, the impugned order was to be challenged, it must have been done immediately after 6th November, 2007, but the appeal was filed on 17th July, 2008. 3. Despite our liberal approach in consideration of the application for condonation of delay, we find that the cause set out in the application does not constitute sufficient cause justifying its condonation. 4. Consequently the application (I.A.No.4320/08) for condonation of delay is rejected. 5. Since the letters patent appeal is barred by time and the application for condonation of delay has been rejected by us, letters patent appeal is liable to be rejected as time barred and we order accordingly. R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. sunil