Jharkhand HC again pulls up State govt for delay, dismisses two more appeals
RANCHI, June 25: In another setback to the Jharkhand government, the Jharkhand High Court has dismissed two Letters Patent Appeals after refusing…
RANCHI, June 25: In another setback to the Jharkhand government, the Jharkhand High Court has dismissed two Letters Patent Appeals after refusing to condone delays of 762 days and 475 days in filing them, reiterating that routine bureaucratic procedures and file movement cannot constitute “sufficient cause” under the Limitation Act. The latest rulings come shortly after the court rejected two other delayed government appeals, reinforcing its repeated warning against administrative lethargy in pursuing litigation.
Deoghar Zila Parishad appeal thrown out after 762-day delay
In the first case, The Deputy Development Commissioner, Deoghar-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Deoghar vs. Sukhdeo Rao & Others (LPA No. 162 of 2026), the Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar refused to condone a 762-day delay in challenging a single judge’s order dated July 25, 2023.
The Bench noted that the application failed to explain nearly nine months of complete inaction after the judgment and another 10 months during which the matter remained pending despite a legal opinion having been received. It observed that the application merely narrated the bureaucratic movement of files and internal processing without establishing the “sufficient cause” required under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay and the connected appeal were dismissed.
ALSO READ: Jharkhand HC clears way for sale of Deoghar hospital over Rs 70-crore loan default
Minor Irrigation Department’s appeal also rejected
In the second matter, State of Jharkhand & Others vs. Sudarshan Mahto & 26 Others (LPA No. 193 of 2026), the High Court rejected the State’s plea to condone a 475-day delay in filing an appeal against an order passed on August 5, 2024.
The court found an unexplained three-month delay before the file was first processed and another 10-month delay while awaiting legal opinion, with no evidence that the authorities had taken any steps to expedite the process. It held that merely listing departmental approvals, file movement and legal consultations did not justify such prolonged delay. The application for condonation and the appeal were accordingly dismissed.
Court reiterates settled law
Relying on Supreme Court decisions, including Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd. (2012), Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (2024) and Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board (2025), the High Court reiterated that government departments cannot seek preferential treatment under the limitation law. It emphasised that “administrative lethargy and laxity” cannot be accepted as sufficient cause for condoning inordinate delay and that prolonged inaction cannot be excused merely because the litigant is the State.
