Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... vs Chandra Deo Mahto And Anr on 2 May, 2016
Author: D.N. Patel
Bench: D. N. Patel, Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. NO.238 of 2014
with
I.A. No.3403 of 2014 and I.A. No. 5034 of 14
The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of
Finance, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
... ... ... ... ... ... Appellant
Versus
1. Chandra Deo Mahto... ... ... ... ... Respondent
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Animal
Husbandry, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Ranchi
... ... .... Performa Respondent
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. PATEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
-----
For the Appellant: M/s. L.C.N. Shahdeo, G.P.-IV, S.K. Gautam
For the Respondent: M/s. Jai Shankar Tripathi, Advocate
------
08/Dated: 2nd May, 2016
Per D.N. Patel, J.
I.A. 3403 of 2014
1) This interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
has been filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 186 days in
preferring the instant appeal.
2) Having heard learned counsel and looking to the reasons stated in
paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the interlocutory application, there are
reasonable reasons for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal.
3) Accordingly, I.A. No. 3403 of 2014 is allowed and delay in filing the
instant appeal is condoned.
L.P.A. No.238 of 2014
4) Looking to the contentious issues involved in the instant appeal, the
same is Admitted.
5) Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, Advocate wavies notice of Rule on behalf
of the respondent.
6) Matter is adjourned to be enlisted in the 2nd week of April, 2017.
I.A. No.5034 of 2014
7) This Interlocutory Application has been preferred for getting stay
against operation, implementation and execution of the order passed by
learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No.7829 of 2012 order dated 25th
November, 2013.
-2-
8) Having heard learned counsels for both sides and looking to the
facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the respondent is
involved in Fodder scam case. Thereafter, charges have been framed
against the respondent and the respondent has also been convicted by
the competent trial Court in R.C. Case No.4(A)/2001 vide judgment dated
29.09.2009. Against this judgment of conviction and order of sentence, Cr. Appeal No.1525 of 2005 has been preferred by the respondent. It also appears from the facts of the case that no stay has been granted in the Criminal Appeal preferred against the order of conviction. The respondent-State has passed order withholding the retiral benefits vide order dated 1st July, 2008.
9) Thus, it appears that there is a prima facie case in favour of this appellant. Balance of convenience is also in favour of this appellant and if the stay, as prayed for, is not granted to the appellant, it will cause an irreparable loss. Once the amount is paid to the respondent, it will not be possible to recover the said amount from the respondent by this appellant, whereas, if this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed, it will be easier for the respondent to recover the amount from the appellant being State of Jharkhand.
10) Hence, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, there is a prima facie case in favour of this appellant. Balance of convenience is also in favour of this appellant and there will be irreparable loss if the stay is not granted. We, therefore, stay the operation, implementation and execution of the order passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No.7829 of 2012 order dated 25th November, 2013, during pendency and final hearing of this L.P.A. No.238 of 2014.
11) I.A. No.5034 of 2014 is allowed and disposed of.
(D. N. Patel, J)
Manoj/ (Ananda Sen, J)