Jharkhand High Court
M/S Heavy Engineering Corporation ... vs The State Of Jharkhand And Others on 18 August, 2023
Author: Shree Chandrashekhar
Bench: Shree Chandrashekhar, Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)
LPA No. 135 of 2020
M/s Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited ......Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Others ... Respondents
---------------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Appellant : Mr. Gulam Mustafa, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. SC-II : Ms. Sunita Kumari, AC to Sr. SC-II
---------------
Order No. 07/ Dated: 18th August 2023 I.A. No. 2372 of 2020 This application has been filed for condonation of delay of 95 days in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal.
2. At the outset Mr. Manish Kumar, the learned Sr. SC-II raises a preliminary objection as to maintainability of the present Letters Patent Appeal referring to the prayers made before the writ Court. However, at this stage, we are not required to go into the merits of the matter and all that this Court is to see whether the appellant has shown sufficient cause for condoning the aforesaid period of delay in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal.
3. In this interlocutory application, the appellant has stated as under:
"4. That it is stated that the Hon'ble Single Judge has passed the impugned judgment on 22.10.2019.
5. That it is stated that after getting copy of the order, the matter was placed before the competent authority of the Appellant and thereafter legal opinion was sought.
6. That it is stated that thereafter it was decided to file appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 22.10.2019.
7. That it is stated and submitted that delay was bonafide and in process of approval for filing appeal and due to movement of file, time was consumed which was beyond the control of the appellant.
8. That it is most humbly stated and submitted that time was consumed in movement of file at various levels in the office of the Appellant, which is the prescribed procedure which the appellant is bound to follow.
9. That it is most humbly stated and submitted that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional; rather delay has been caused due to reasons stated above."
24. Having regard to the objection raised by Mr. Manish Kumar, learned Sr. SC-II, for the purpose of adjudicating the said issue, we deem it proper to condone the delay so as to hear the parties on the maintainability issue.
5. I.A. No. 2372 of 2020 is allowed.
LPA No. 135 of 20206. Mr. Gulam Mustafa, the learned counsel for the appellant states that he has recently been engaged by the appellant to argue this Letters Patent Appeal. We find that Mr. Gulam Mustafa, the learned counsel has prosecuted W.P.(C) No. 3533 of 2019 and he admits at the bar that he is well aware of the facts and issues involved in the case.
7. Notwithstanding that, Mr. Gulam Mustafa, the learned counsel for the appellant is seeking adjournment.
8. On his request, post this matter on 31st August 2023 under the heading "Final Disposal".
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav/Pankaj-