Patna High Court
Shravan Kumar @ Shravn KumarversusThe Union of India
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The court held that the restoration petition cannot be condoned due to the absence of sufficient cause for the seven-year delay.
Summary
The petitioner, Shravan Kumar, filed a restoration petition seeking to revive Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2642 of 2017, which had been dismissed. The petition was filed approximately seven years after the dismissal, an inordinate delay. The court examined the petitioner's lack of a cogent explanation for the delay and referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer, which requires a sufficient cause for condoning delay. Finding no sufficient cause and deeming the delay negligent, the court refused to condone the delay. Consequently, the restoration petition was dismissed, and any pending applications were also ordered to stand disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether a restoration petition filed after a seven-year delay can be condoned under the principles of sufficient cause.
- Whether the petitioner has provided a satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay.
Subjects
- restoration petition
- condonation of delay
- civil writ jurisdiction
- limitation period
- Supreme Court precedent
- administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2763 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2642 of 2017
======================================================
Shravan Kumar @ Shravn Kumar Son of Late Dasarath Chaudhary, resident
of village- Manjhaul Bisharsthan, P.S.- Cheria, Bariarpur, District- Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through the D.G. cum Secretary Department of Post,
Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Chief Post Master General, Bihar, Circle, Patna.
3. The Assistant Director (Staff and Recruitment) o/o The Chief Post Master,
Bihar Circle, Patna.
4. The Superintendent of Post Office, Begusarai, Division, Begusarai.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Hussamuddin Azad, Advocate
For the UOI : Mr. Avadesh Kumar Pandey, Sr. CGC
Mr. Ravindra Kumar Sharma, CGC
Mr. Lokesh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
3 01-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2.The present restoration petition has been preferred
seeking restoration of CWJC No. 2642 of 2017 which came to
be dismissed.
3. Upon perusal of the records, it transpires that the
restoration petition has been filed after an inordinate delay of
approximately seven years from the date of dismissal.
4. Upon consideration of the grounds stated in the
Patna High Court MJC No.2763 of 2025(3) dt.01-07-2026
2/3
application, we find that no cogent, convincing, or justifiable
explanation has been furnished for such prolonged delay. At this
juncture, it is pertinent to take note of the decision rendered by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding the case of
Basawaraj V. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013)14
SCC 81, wherein it was observed as follows:
“15. The law on the issue can be summarised
to the effect that where a case has been
presented in the court beyond limitation, the
applicant has to explain the court as to what
was the “sufficient cause” which means an
adequate and enough reason which
prevented him to approach the court within
limitation. In case a party is found to be
negligent, or for want of bona fide on his
part in the facts and circumstances of the
case, or found to have not acted diligently or
remained inactive, there cannot be a justified
ground to condone the delay. No court could
be justified in condoning such an inordinate
delay by imposing any condition whatsoever.
The application is to be decided only within
the parameters laid down by this Court in
regard to the condonation of delay. In case
there was no sufficient cause to prevent a
litigant to approach the court on time
condoning the delay without any
justification, putting any condition
whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in
violation of the statutory provisions and it
tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the
legislature.”
5. Accordingly, the present application stands
dismissed.
Patna High Court MJC No.2763 of 2025(3) dt.01-07-2026
3/3
6. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
( Ranjan Kumar Jha, J)
rishabh/rajesh
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.