IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1078 of 2007 TILKA MANJHI BHAGALPUR UNIVERS Versus HIMANSHU SHEKHAR JHA & ORS ----------- For the appellant: Mr.A.K.Keshri For the respondent no.1 : Mr. Purushottam Kumar Jha respondent nos. 2 to 4 : Mr. A.K.Sharan, SC - XX P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Ravi Ranjan --- Dated, the 7th August, 2008 In this letters patent appeal the order dated 19th October, 2006 passed by the single judge has been impugned. The appeal has been preferred on 13th November, 2007. According to the office report, there is delay of 386 days i.e., one year and 21 days. 2. An application (IA. No.7144 of 2007) has been made by the appellants seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The averments made in the application read thus: “That the period of limitation for filing the present appeal is 30 days and as such, the limitation expired on 18.11.2006. That the writ petitioner filed the order of this Hon’ble Court dated 19.10.06 to the University on 12.12.06 That the matter was examined in the University and the Registrar of the University wrote a letter to the counsel for the University for filing the present appeal in this matter. That an application was made on 17.9.07 for obtaining the certified copy of the order dated 19.10.06 passed in CWJC. No.12378 of 2000 and the certified copy 2 was ready on 5.11.07. That on 6.11.07 the certified copy was handed over the counsel of the University for preparing the draft of the present appeal and it was prepared on 9.11.07 and the typist handed over the type copy of the draft in the evening on 12.11.07 and the memo of appeal is presented to the stamp report on 13.11.07.” 3. We are afraid , the aforesaid averments do not make out sufficient cause. As a matter of fact, there is gross negligence on the part of the appellants in dealing with the matter. It is undisputed that the impugned order came to be passed on 19th October, 2006 and that the said order was passed in the presence of the present appellants. Despite that the order dated 19th October, 2006 is adverse to the present appellants, the application for obtaining the certified copy of the order was made almost after eleven months of the decision. To be specific, the application for obtaining the certified copy was made on 17th September, 2007 although the order came to be passed on 19th October, 2006 in the presence of the Advocate for the appellants. Moreover, paragraph -4 of the application shows that the writ petitioner had sent the copy of the order dated 19th October, 2006 to the University on 12th December, 2006, but still they proceeded with leisurely. In paragraph -5 of the application for condonation of delay, it is stated that the matter was sent to the University and the Registrar of the University wrote a letter to the counsel for the University for filing the appeal but no date is given as to on which date the matter was examined by the 3 University and by whom and when the Registrar of the University wrote a letter to the Counsel for the University for filing the appeal. 4. All in all, we are satisfied that the cause shown in the application does not constitute sufficient cause justifying condonation of long delay of more than one year. 5. Since the appeal is barred by time and we have rejected the application (IA No.7144 of 2008) for condonation of delay, the letters patent appeal is liable to be dismissed as time barred and we order accordingly. R. M. Lodha, CJ. Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. Neyaz/-