Hirendra Prasad Yadav v. The State of Bihar

For the Appellant : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Senior Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Din Bandhu Singh, GP-9 Mr. Rana B.N.Singh, A.C. to G.P.-9 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 2 Patna High Court LPA No.1732 of 2012 (4) dt.08-07-2013 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

#4. 8-7-2013 Interlocutory Application No.7281 of 2012: This Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed by the appellant workman for condonation of delay of five years, nine months and five days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. It appears that the appellant first approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in C.W.J.C. No. 9293 of 2004 with a prayer that his service as daily wage employee in the respondent National Highway Authority be regularized. The said petition came to be dismissed on 8th May 2006. The Letters Patent Appeal No.422 of 2006 arising therefrom was withdrawn on 14th March 2007 and Civil Review No.74 of 2007 filed by the appellant came to be rejected on 25th November 2008. The appellant has now moved this Court under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent to challenge the above referred order dated 8th May 2006 made on C.W.J.C. No. 9293 of 2004. Learned counsel Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that the appellant was wrongly advised that he had no further remedy. The appellant, therefore, did not pursue the remedy at the relevant time. He has submitted that the order of the learned single Judge is manifestly erroneous. This Court, therefore, should condone the delay and entertain the Appeal. We see no reason to condone the aforesaid unexplained, undue delay. It is apparent that the appellant rightly 3 Patna High Court LPA No.1732 of 2012 (4) dt.08-07-2013 did not pursue the matter after his review application was rejected. It appears that years thereafter under a wrong advise the appellant has tried to test his luck. In our opinion, no cause, much less the sufficient cause has been made out by the appellant. Application is rejected. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1732 of 2012: Appeal is dismissed as time barred. (R.M. Doshit, CJ) Pawan/- (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)