Lalita Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.551 of 2021 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7249 of 2013 ====================================================== Lalita Devi, Wife of Late Baban Prasad Singh Resident of Village and P.O.- lauwan, P.S.-lshupur, District-Saran (Chapra). ... ... Appellant

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Home (Police) Department Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3.

The Inspector of Police, Darbhanga Zone, Darbhanga, 4.

The Deputy Inspector of Police, Darbhanga Range, Darbhanga, 5.

The Superintendent of Police, Samastipur, 6.

The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Samastipur Sadar, District-Samastipur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Prabhat Kr. Verma, AAG-3 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI) Date : 28-07-2025 Ref: I.A. No. 01 of 2025 Heard I.A. No. 01 of 2025.

Appellant has assailed the order of the learned Single Judge dated 10.05.2013 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7249 of 2013. There is a delay of about 2653 days in filing present L.P.A. No. 551 of 2021. Reasons assigned to condone the delay reads as under:

"2. That the petitioner/ Appellant have not moved

Patna High Court L.P.A No.551 of 2021 dt.28-07-2025 2/3 earlier for the reliefs as prayed in Paragraph no.1 of the instant Interlocutory Application.

3. That the husband of the petitioner/ Appellant was the original petitioner in the writ application and she has no idea regarding the same and after his death she failed to file the L.P.A. in time firstly due to no knowledge regarding the writ application and secondly due to paucity.

4. That the Appellant have a good case and will suffer irrespirable loss if the delay will not condone.

5. That the cause of delay is beyond the control of the Appellant, hence the same may be condone.

6. That the Appellant have reasonable good chance to succeed the case on the basis of Law and facts.

7. That the Appellant have not moved earlier before this Hon'ble Court for the relief as prayed in paragraph no.1 of the instant application."

2. Reading of the aforementioned statement to condone the enormous delay of about 2653 days, sufficient cause has not been shown and dates and events. Assuming that appellant's husband died on 10.11.2016, deceased had 03 years and few months from the date of learned Single Judge order. Further, from the date of death of the deceased employee,

Patna High Court L.P.A No.551 of 2021 dt.28-07-2025 3/3 Appellant had sufficient time in the year 2016-2017. On the other hand, the present L.P.A. has been present in the year 2021.

3. In view of these facts and circumstances, the Appellant has not made out a case so as to condone the enormous delay of about 2653 days in assailing the order of the learned Single Judge dated 10.05.2013 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7249 of 2013.

4. Accordingly, I.A. No. 01 of 2025 stands rejected. Consequently, L.P.A. No. 551 of 2021 stands dismissed. (P. B. Bajanthri, J) ( Alok Kumar Pandey, J) manish/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 31.07.2025 Transmission Date NA