IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.39 of 2009 THE SECRETARY, NORTH BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUZAFFARPUR NOW BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, EAST GANDHI MAIDAN 1ST FLOOR, UDYOG BHAWAN, PATNA-4 ………………..….. APPELLANT-RESPONDENT. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. THE SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA, 3. THE NORTH BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUZAFFARPUR THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR NOW THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, EAST GANDHI MAIDAN 1ST FLOOR, UDYOG BHAWAN, PATNA-4 ……………………... RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS, AND 4. RAMBRIKSH DAS, S/O YADU DAS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KANHAULI, PS MITHANPURA, DISTT. MUZAFFARPUR ……………………………...…… RESPONDENT – PETITIONER. ----------- For the Appellant:- Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Sharad Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent–Petitioner:- Mr. Purnendu Singh, Advocate. For the State:- S.C. 16. ----------- 7. 29.04.2009. Reg. I.A. No. 138 of 2009. This petition is filed for condoning the delay of 632 days in filing the appeal. The writ petitioner approached this Court that his juniors, 4 in number, were given promotion. Annexure-19 shows that the petitioner was senior. The counter affidavit also stated that the petitioner was senior, but it is stated that the matter was kept undecided. The learned Single Judge directed to give promotion to the petitioner also from the date his juniors were 2 promoted. It is also stated that the judgment was already implemented. The petitioner had already retired from service after a very long service. The reason stated in support of the delay condonation petition was at all not satisfactory, therefore, we directed for filing of a detailed affidavit and, accordingly, a detailed affidavit was filed. Therein it is stated that the impugned order was passed on 1.3.2007. Requisites for obtaining certified copy of the order were filed on 08.03.2007 and the order could be obtained on 02.04.2007. Thereafter, occurred some internal delay. In Paragraph 9 it is stated that the Senior Assistant marked the file on 13.04.2007 for placing it before the Managing Director which was finally placed on 16.04.2007 and it was put up before the In-charge, Establishment on 19.04.2007. Thereafter, paragraph 10 shows that no action was taken for about 3 months and the file surfaced again only in July, 2007 and it is stated that the Secretary consented on 07.07.2007 for obtaining a report from the Executive Director and then after an explained delay of four months a reminder was sent on 23.11.2007 for obtaining the said report, as can be seen from paragraph 11 of the affidavit. When the report was not received, the Secretary 3 requisitioned the file from the Regional Office. It is further stated in paragraph 13 that in the meantime the Managing Director was deputed on election duty and from 15.02.2008 there was strike in the Office which continued for about a month. A month’s strike is not a sufficient reason for explaining 602 days delay. Only internal delays without undue delay are stated and finally it is stated that the draft of the appeal was approved on 16.10.2008 and the memorandum of appeal was filed with limitation petition on 22.12.2008. We are of the view that no grounds are made out for condoning the long delay of about two years in filing the Letters Patent Appeal, specially when the judgment under appeal was implemented and the writ petitioner already retired from service and that the impugned judgment has a bearing only upon a single case and there is no effect on other cases. In the above circumstances, the delay condonation petition is dismissed and, consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. dk ( J.B. Koshy, CJ ) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )