Patna High Court
Bihar through the,versusDinesh Chandra Duwedi
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The Court held that there was no sufficient cause to condone the delay and therefore dismissed the modification application.
Summary
The petitioners sought modification of the Patna High Court order dated 26 September 2018 (LPA No. 446 of 2017) which itself had upheld an earlier order of 2 September 2016. They had earlier approached the Supreme Court via SLP (Civil) No. 27038/2019, which was dismissed on 26 August 2019 with the question of law left open. After a delay of more than five years, the petitioners filed a modification application without providing a satisfactory explanation for the lapse. The Court, relying on the principles laid down in Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81, held that the delay was inordinate and no sufficient cause was shown. Consequently, the Court found no ground to interfere with or modify the 2018 order and dismissed the modification application.
Issues considered
- Whether a modification application filed after an inordinate delay of over five years can be entertained.
- Whether the petitioners have shown sufficient cause to condone the delay.
- Whether the earlier Supreme Court dismissal of the SLP precludes re‑litigation through a modification application.
Subjects
- modification of order
- condonation of delay
- limitation period
- letters patent appeal
- Supreme Court SLP dismissal
- Basawaraj principle
- judicial discretion
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3645 of 2024
In
Letters Patent Appeal No.446 of 2017
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government
of Patna.
3. The Deputy Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Dinesh Chandra Duwedi, Son of Late Sarvdeo Duwedi, Resident of
Mohalla- A/2018, P.C. Colony, P.S.- Kankarbagh, District- Patna.
2. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.Raja Ahmad, AAG-5
Mr. Vishwambhar Prasad, AC to AAG-5
Mr. Kamil Akhtar, AC to AAG-5
For the Opposite Party/s :
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
4 02-02-2026 Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks modification
of the order dated 26.09.2018 passed in LPA No. 446 of 2017,
which was directed against the order dated 02.09.2016 passed in
CWJC No. 7705 of 2015.
2. It is not in dispute that the petitioners, aggrieved by
the order dated 26.09.2018, had approached the Hon’ble
Supreme Court by filing SLP (Civil) Diary No(s). 27038/2019,
which was dismissed on 26.08.2019. The order passed by the
Patna High Court MJC No.3645 of 2024(4) dt.02-02-2026
2/3
Hon’ble Supreme Court reads as under:
“Upon hearing the counsel the court made the
following O R D E R
Delay condoned.
The special leave petition is dismissed.
However, the question of law is kept open.
The special leave petition is dismissed.”
3. The present modification application seeking
modification of the order dated 26.09.2018 has been filed after
an inordinate delay of more than five years. 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
Patna High Court MJC No.3645 of 2024(4) dt.02-02-2026
3/3
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.
4. The petitioners, having already availed the remedy
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and having suffered
dismissal of the SLP, cannot be permitted to reagitate the matter
by seeking modification after such an unexplained lapse of time.
5. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find
any sufficient ground to interfere with or modify the order dated
26.09.2018.
6. Accordingly, the present modification application
stands dismissed.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Sujit/-
U
Checking your session…