STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. versus KRISHNA PRADHAN & ORS

Citation: [2010] 12 S.C.R. 201 · Decided: 01-10-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU, T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Hearing Adjourned
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 12 S.C.R. 201 
STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 
v. 
KRISHNA PRADHAN & ORS. 
(SLP No. 29275 of 2010) 
OCTOBER 1, 2010 
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] 
GOVERNMENT LIT/GA TION: 
A 
B 
Inordinate delay in filing writ petitions/appeals - Held: c 
Cases are coming before Supreme Court and High Courts 
where appeals or writ petitions are filed by the government or 
the State Authorities after inordinate delay and an explanation 
is sought to be given in the application for condonation of 
delay that the file was moved from one desk to another or the 
D 
approval was sought from the higher authority which took 
considerable time - This practice is often adopted by officials 
of various State Governments and has become a regular 
feature - The explanation usually given for the delay is the 
red tape in government offices - It is high time that this ma/-
E 
practice be severely rooted out and an effectual mechanism 
be adopted all over the country so that such delays do not 
occur in future -
The Chief Secretary for the State of 
Jharkhand will file an affidavit explaining what action has been 
taken against the officials causing the delay - In case, no 
action has been taken, reasons for the same be mentioned 
- Let the copy of this order be sent to Solicitor General of 
India, who is requested to assist the Court as an amicus curiae 
F 
- Copies shall also be sent to the Chief Secretaries of all the 
States so that effective action may. be taken in this regard -
Administration of Justice -
De/ay/Laches -
Delay by G 
Government authorities in filing writ petitions/appeals. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave 
Petition (C) No. 29275 of 2010. 
201 
H 
202 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment & Order dated 1.4.2009 of the High 
B 
c 
Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in SA No. 216 of 2005. 
Ratan Kumar Choudhuri for the Petitioners. 
Nagendra Rai, Ranjeet Kumar for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
Issue notice. 
In this case, second appeal before the High Court was filed 
after 501 days. In this Court also the petition has been filed after 
delay of more than one year. 
0 
It appears that cases are coming up before this Court, and 
probably before the High Court also, where appeals or writ 
petitions are filed after inordinate delay and an explanation is 
sought to be given in the application for condonation of delay 
in such cases filed by the government or the State Authorities 
that the file was moved from one desk to another or the approval 
E was sought from the higher authority which took considerable 
time. We feel that the beneficiary of the judgment may be hand 
in glove with the officials in the Government Department who 
deal with the files, and files are suppressed for a long period, 
and then the appeal before the High Court or Supreme Court 
F is filed after a long delay to get the appeal dismissed on the 
ground of delay. Huge amonts of public money of public 
property may be involved and the Government will be the loser 
on the technical point of limitation in such cases. This racket 
has been going on for a long time not only before the Supreme 
G Court but also before the High Courts. Now the time has come 
that this racket should come to an end and the officials 
responsible for this be given severe punishment. 
The Chief Secretary for the State of Jharkhand will file an 
H affidavit explaining what action has been taken against the 
STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. v. KRISHNA 
203 
PRADHAN & ORS. 
officials causing the delay. In case, no action has been taken, 
reasons for the same be mentioned. 
This practice is often adopted by officials of various State 
Governments and has become a regular feature. The 
explanation usually given for the delay is the red tape in 
government offices. 
It is high time that this mal-practice be severely rooted out 
and an effectual mechanism be adoptd all over the country so 
that such delays do not occur in future. 
Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Solicitor 
General of India, who is requested to assist us as amicus 
curiae. 
A 
B 
c 
Copies shall also be sent to the Chief Secretaries of all 
the States so that effective action may be taken in this regard. 
D 
Issue notice to all Chief Secretaries of States/Union Territories 
in India. 
Mr. Nagendra Rai, Sr. Advocates appears on behalf of 
respondent Nos. 1 to 3. He prays for and is granted four weeks' 
E 
time to file counter affidavit.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.