STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. ATO SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 4137 of 2012 prosecuted by two writ petitioners Ato Singh, son of Late Lurhu Singh and Sachidanand Pandey. Being aggrieved thereby, the State of Jharkhand is in appeal. The appeal suffers from delay of 191 days for condonation of which I.A. No. 4254 of 2018 has been preferred.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant State and the respondent no.2 on the point of condonation of delay of 191 days in preferring the instant memo of appeal made through I.A. No. 4254 of 2018.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State submits that after receipt of the certified copy of the judgment in the office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Hazribag West Division on 03.11.2017, the matter was forwarded to the concerned authorities for taking decision vide letter no. 5440 dated 14.11.2017. After due consideration, decision was taken to prefer an appeal and the file was sent back to the office of Divisional Forest Officer, Hazaribag West Division vide letter no. 1281 dated 27.03.2018. In terms of the said decision, the D.F.O, Hazaribag West Division prepared the grounds for appeal and forwarded the same for approval to the Conservator of Forest, Hazaribag vide letter no. 1943 dated 04.04.2018, which in turn was forwarded to the Regional Chief Conservator of Forest, Hazaribag for approval vide letter no. 923 dated 04.04.2018. Without any further delay the draft was thereafter forwarded to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jharkhand vide letter no. 1119 dated 07.04.2018 for final approval, which was granted by the Government on 27.04.2018. The approved draft was submitted to the office of learned Advocate General for preparation of memo of appeal and thereafter the appeal was drafted. Appellant State has in sufficient detail explained the reasons for delay in preferring the appeal. Appellants have raised sufficient grounds for interference in the impugned judgment. It is submitted that if the delay is not condoned, appellant would suffer irreparable loss.