STATE OF BIHAR Vs. PURAN CHANDRA MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal presented by and on behalf of the State is barred by 99 days and, therefore, an application for extension of period of limitation has been made, learned counsel Mr. K. P. Yadav appearing for the State and Mr. A. K. Singh for respondent heard.

(2.) This case was listed on 4-11-97 when this Court directed for an enquiry to be conducted by the Department concerned fixing responsibility as to on whose fault the appeal could not be presented in time so that appropriate action may be taken by the Department concerned against the erring officer. It has also been observed that a common practice has been developed to file almost all the appeals on behalf of the State after the lapse of the period of limitation without showing sufficient cause and good cause which actually prevented the officers of the State to file the appeal well within the period of limitation.

(3.) In this case even on the date of hearing of argument before the learned single Judge none appeared to defend and represent the case on behalf of the State Government despite the fact that a Galaxy of counsel has been engaged and heavy expenditure is being incurred on them by State Exchequer. It appears that because of non-representation of the case on behalf of the State, the learned single Judge had no option but to proceed in accordance with law and ultimately he passed the impugned order dated 8th July, 1996.