{"id":389575,"date":"2026-07-07T10:00:57","date_gmt":"2026-07-07T04:30:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=389575"},"modified":"2026-07-07T09:41:18","modified_gmt":"2026-07-07T04:11:18","slug":"jharkhand-hc-bureaucratic-inaction-cannot-excuse-limitation-delay","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/07\/jharkhand-hc-bureaucratic-inaction-cannot-excuse-limitation-delay\/","title":{"rendered":"Bureaucratic Inaction Cannot Excuse Limitation Delay: Jharkhand High Court dismisses condonation plea"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Jharkhand High Court:<\/span> The Division Bench of M.S. Sonak, C.J. and Rajesh Shankar J. dismissed the appeal sought for the condonation of delay con the grounds that the appellants failed to provide specific, cogent, and satisfactory reasons for claiming the relaxation specified under Section 5<\/a>, Limitation Act, 1963<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Background<\/p>\n

The case arose from an appeal filed for the condonation of the delay of 762 days in filing the appeal against the learned Single Judge’s judgment passed on 25 July 2023. The appellants meticulously explained everything regarding the bureaucratic movement of files across various governmental departments. The appeal listed the reasons for the delay on the routine steps, the movement of files, the obtaining of a legal opinion, internal processing, drafting the grounds of appeal and collection of documents.<\/p>\n

The appeal was filed considering the provisions specified under Section 5<\/a>, Limitation Act<\/a> for the Court to decide if the appellants can get the benefit of the provision and whether their list of reasons fall under the category of “sufficient cause” to justify condonation of the extraordinary delay of 762 days in filing the appeal.<\/p>\n

Decision and Analysis<\/p>\n

The Court observed that the impugned judgment was delivered on 25 July 2023, but the first step taken by the appellants occurred only on 8 May 2024, nearly 9 months later, and that too after contempt proceedings were initiated by the writ petitioner. Another unexplained gap of 10 months occurred between 10 July 2024 and 28 May 2025 when the file was sent to the Principal Secretary.<\/p>\n

The Court noted that these 2 periods of inaction constituted the bulk of the delay, and no explanation was offered for them. The appellants merely recited routine steps such as file movement, obtaining legal opinions, and drafting grounds of appeal. The Court emphasised that such bureaucratic explanations, without substantive reasons, cannot amount to “sufficient cause”.<\/p>\n

The Court highlighted that the applications filed with casual averments and routine bureaucratic explanations cannot be accepted as showing sufficient cause. In the present case, nothing has been demonstrated to show any real or substantive reason for the delay. Merely stating that the matter was under consideration, that notes were moved, and that the grounds of appeal were ultimately prepared, cannot by itself justify condonation of delay of this unusual magnitude.<\/p>\n

In this regard, the Court relied on the dictum of the Supreme Court in Postmaster General<\/span> v. Living Media India Ltd.<\/span>, (2012) 3 SCC 563<\/a>. In the said case, the Court held that government departments staffed with legally conversant personnel cannot claim any special or extended period of limitation. Mere recitation of dates of file movement, without explaining the reason for each interval, does not constitute sufficient cause. The Court categorically rejected the excuse of impersonal machinery and bureaucratic methodology, particularly in the age of modern technology, and held that delay cannot be condoned mechanically solely because the applicant is the Government or a wing thereof.<\/p>\n

The Court further mentioned the case of Union of India<\/span> v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy<\/span>, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 489<\/a>, where the Supreme Court held that before adverting to the merits, the Court must first assess the bona fides of the explanation offered; merits may be taken into aid only where the explanation and the opposition are evenly balanced. Reiterating that limitation is grounded in public policy and equity, the Court held that delay cannot be excused as a matter of generosity. The status of a litigant, whether private or State, is immaterial when condoning gross delay. Prolonged inaction cannot be presumed non-deliberate, and in such circumstances, a plea of substantial justice cannot override the bar of limitation.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court has also held that it is trite law that a government department cannot claim a separate period of limitation. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everyone, including the Government. If it is found from the record of a particular case that the Department(s) or the officials concerned were not diligent in prosecuting the matter in the Court by taking appropriate steps, the application for condonation of delay is liable to be rejected.<\/p>\n

The Court emphasised on the judgment in the case of Shivamma<\/span> v. Karnataka Housing Board<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969<\/a>, the Supreme Court has once again made it abundantly clear that “administrative lethargy and laxity” can never constitute sufficient ground for condonation of delay. The Supreme Court observed “we want to convey an emphatic message to all the High Courts that delays shall not be condoned on frivolous and superficial grounds, until a proper case of sufficient cause is made out, wherein the State-machinery is able to establish that it acted with bona fides and remained vigilant all throughout. Procedure is a handmaid to justice, as is famously said. But courts, and more particularly the Constitutional Courts, ought not to obviate the procedure for a litigating State agency, who also equally suffer the bars of limitation from pursuing litigations due to its own lackadaisical attitude”.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court further observed that the High Courts ought not give a legitimising effect to such callous attitude of the State authorities or their instrumentalities, and should remain extra cautious if the party seeking condonation of delay is a State authority. They should not become surrogates for State laxity and lethargy. The Constitutional Courts ought to be cognizant of the apathy and pangs of a private litigant. Litigants cannot be placed in situations of perpetual litigation, wherein the fruits of their decrees or favourable orders are frustrated at later stages.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court observed: “We are at pains to reiterate this everlasting trend, and put all the High Courts to notice, not to reopen matters with inordinate delay, until sufficient cause exists, as by doing so the courts only add insult to the injury, more particularly in appeals under Section 100<\/a> of the CPC<\/a>, wherein its jurisdiction is already limited to questions of law.”<\/p>\n

As a court of conscience, the courts are obligated to ensure that a litigant is not sent from pillar to post to seek justice. No litigant should be permitted to be so lethargic and apathetic, let alone be permitted by the courts to misuse the process of law.<\/p>\n

The Court dismissed the appeal seeking condonation of the delay of 762 days in filing the accompanying appeal. The Court was satisfied applying the above principles to the gross facts and circumstances of the case, that no sufficient cause was shown by the appellants.<\/p>\n

[Zila Parisad, Deoghar<\/span> v. Sukhdeo Rao<\/span>, I.A. No. 3451 of 2026, decided on 25-6-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

*Judgment authored by: Chief Justice M. S. Sonak<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

For the Appellant:<\/span> Ashutosh Anand, Addl. A.G.-III, Sahbaj Akhtar, A.C. to A.A.G.-III<\/p>\n

For the Respondent:<\/span> Ashwini Bhushan, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-II<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Jharkhand High Court reinforces the principle that government departments are not entitled to special indulgence in limitation matters. Courts must protect private litigants from perpetual litigation caused by bureaucratic delays. The ruling sends a strong message that administrative lethargy cannot override statutory limitation periods.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67544,"featured_media":389576,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[109146,109144,109155,109152,13891,109149,5791,109143,109156,109151,109153,34695,109147,109145,109154,109148,32319,109150],"class_list":["post-389575","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-bureaucratic-movement","tag-c-j-and-rajesh-shankar-j-condonation-of-the-delay","tag-callous-attitude-of-the-state-authorities","tag-casual-averments","tag-contempt-proceedings","tag-delay-of-762-days","tag-jharkhand-high-court","tag-m-s-sonak","tag-misuse-the-process-of-law","tag-periods-of-inaction","tag-postmaster-general-v-living-media-india-ltd","tag-questions-of-law","tag-routine-steps","tag-section-5-of-limitation-act-1963","tag-shivamma-v-karnataka-housing-board","tag-state-laxity-and-lethargy","tag-sufficient-cause","tag-unexplained-gap"],"yoast_head":"\nBureaucratic Inaction Cannot Excuse Limitation Delay: Jharkhand High Court dismisses the appeal for condonation of delay | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Jharkhand High Court dismissed condonation of 762-day delay, holding bureaucratic file movement is not sufficient cause under S. 5 Limitation Act; government cannot claim special indulgence.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/07\/jharkhand-hc-bureaucratic-inaction-cannot-excuse-limitation-delay\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bureaucratic Inaction Cannot Excuse Limitation Delay: Jharkhand High Court dismisses condonation plea\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Jharkhand High Court dismissed condonation of 762-day delay, holding bureaucratic file movement is not sufficient cause under S. 5 Limitation Act; government cannot claim special indulgence.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/07\/jharkhand-hc-bureaucratic-inaction-cannot-excuse-limitation-delay\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-07-07T04:30:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/condonation-of-delay-bureaucratic-inaction-Jharkhand-High-Court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Chandra Sharma\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Bureaucratic Inaction Cannot Excuse Limitation Delay: Jharkhand High Court dismisses condonation plea\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Chandra Sharma\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"NewsArticle\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/07\\\/jharkhand-hc-bureaucratic-inaction-cannot-excuse-limitation-delay\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/07\\\/jharkhand-hc-bureaucratic-inaction-cannot-excuse-limitation-delay\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Chandra Sharma\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/fd34de74f274cfdc852af1e7f13f510d\"},\"headline\":\"Bureaucratic Inaction Cannot Excuse Limitation Delay: Jharkhand High Court dismisses condonation plea\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-07T04:30:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/07\\\/jharkhand-hc-bureaucratic-inaction-cannot-excuse-limitation-delay\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1116,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/07\\\/jharkhand-hc-bureaucratic-inaction-cannot-excuse-limitation-delay\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/condonation-of-delay-bureaucratic-inaction-Jharkhand-High-Court.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"bureaucratic movement\",\"C.J. and Rajesh Shankar J. condonation of the delay\",\"callous attitude of the State authorities\",\"casual averments\",\"contempt proceedings\",\"delay of 762 days\",\"Jharkhand High Court\",\"M. S. Sonak\",\"misuse the process of law\",\"periods of inaction\",\"Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd.\",\"Questions of Law\",\"routine steps\",\"section 5 of Limitation Act 1963\",\"Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board\",\"State laxity and lethargy\",\"Sufficient Cause\",\"unexplained gap\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"High Courts\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/07\\\/jharkhand-hc-bureaucratic-inaction-cannot-excuse-limitation-delay\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/07\\\/jharkhand-hc-bureaucratic-inaction-cannot-excuse-limitation-delay\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/07\\\/jharkhand-hc-bureaucratic-inaction-cannot-excuse-limitation-delay\\\/\",\"name\":\"Bureaucratic Inaction Cannot Excuse Limitation Delay: Jharkhand High Court dismisses the appeal for condonation of delay | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/07\\\/jharkhand-hc-bureaucratic-inaction-cannot-excuse-limitation-delay\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/07\\\/jharkhand-hc-bureaucratic-inaction-cannot-excuse-limitation-delay\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/condonation-of-delay-bureaucratic-inaction-Jharkhand-High-Court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-07T04:30:57+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/fd34de74f274cfdc852af1e7f13f510d\"},\"description\":\"Jharkhand High Court dismissed condonation of 762-day delay, holding bureaucratic file movement is not sufficient cause under S. 5 Limitation Act; government cannot claim special indulgence.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/07\\\/jharkhand-hc-bureaucratic-inaction-cannot-excuse-limitation-delay\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/07\\\/jharkhand-hc-bureaucratic-inaction-cannot-excuse-limitation-delay\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/07\\\/jharkhand-hc-bureaucratic-inaction-cannot-excuse-limitation-delay\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/condonation-of-delay-bureaucratic-inaction-Jharkhand-High-Court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/condonation-of-delay-bureaucratic-inaction-Jharkhand-High-Court.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"condonation of delay bureaucratic inaction Jharkhand High Court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/07\\\/jharkhand-hc-bureaucratic-inaction-cannot-excuse-limitation-delay\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bureaucratic Inaction Cannot Excuse Limitation Delay: Jharkhand High Court dismisses condonation plea\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/fd34de74f274cfdc852af1e7f13f510d\",\"name\":\"Chandra Sharma\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/36ba7149e274113324ac8d01f3e104f48d3c4b93ddf418dc3ae8d94a3e855c6a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/36ba7149e274113324ac8d01f3e104f48d3c4b93ddf418dc3ae8d94a3e855c6a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/36ba7149e274113324ac8d01f3e104f48d3c4b93ddf418dc3ae8d94a3e855c6a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Chandra Sharma\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/chandra-sharma\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bureaucratic Inaction Cannot Excuse Limitation Delay: Jharkhand High Court dismisses the appeal for condonation of delay | SCC Times","description":"Jharkhand High Court dismissed condonation of 762-day delay, holding bureaucratic file movement is not sufficient cause under S. 5 Limitation Act; government cannot claim special indulgence.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/07\/jharkhand-hc-bureaucratic-inaction-cannot-excuse-limitation-delay\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bureaucratic Inaction Cannot Excuse Limitation Delay: Jharkhand High Court dismisses condonation plea","og_description":"Jharkhand High Court dismissed condonation of 762-day delay, holding bureaucratic file movement is not sufficient cause under S. 5 Limitation Act; government cannot claim special indulgence.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/07\/jharkhand-hc-bureaucratic-inaction-cannot-excuse-limitation-delay\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-07-07T04:30:57+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/condonation-of-delay-bureaucratic-inaction-Jharkhand-High-Court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Chandra Sharma","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Bureaucratic Inaction Cannot Excuse Limitation Delay: Jharkhand High Court dismisses condonation plea","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Chandra Sharma","Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"NewsArticle","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/07\/jharkhand-hc-bureaucratic-inaction-cannot-excuse-limitation-delay\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/07\/jharkhand-hc-bureaucratic-inaction-cannot-excuse-limitation-delay\/"},"author":{"name":"Chandra Sharma","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/fd34de74f274cfdc852af1e7f13f510d"},"headline":"Bureaucratic Inaction Cannot Excuse Limitation Delay: Jharkhand High Court dismisses condonation plea","datePublished":"2026-07-07T04:30:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/07\/jharkhand-hc-bureaucratic-inaction-cannot-excuse-limitation-delay\/"},"wordCount":1116,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/07\/jharkhand-hc-bureaucratic-inaction-cannot-excuse-limitation-delay\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/condonation-of-delay-bureaucratic-inaction-Jharkhand-High-Court.webp","keywords":["bureaucratic movement","C.J. and Rajesh Shankar J. condonation of the delay","callous attitude of the State authorities","casual averments","contempt proceedings","delay of 762 days","Jharkhand High Court","M. S. Sonak","misuse the process of law","periods of inaction","Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd.","Questions of Law","routine steps","section 5 of Limitation Act 1963","Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board","State laxity and lethargy","Sufficient Cause","unexplained gap"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","High Courts"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/07\/jharkhand-hc-bureaucratic-inaction-cannot-excuse-limitation-delay\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/07\/jharkhand-hc-bureaucratic-inaction-cannot-excuse-limitation-delay\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/07\/jharkhand-hc-bureaucratic-inaction-cannot-excuse-limitation-delay\/","name":"Bureaucratic Inaction Cannot Excuse Limitation Delay: Jharkhand High Court dismisses the appeal for condonation of delay | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/07\/jharkhand-hc-bureaucratic-inaction-cannot-excuse-limitation-delay\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/07\/jharkhand-hc-bureaucratic-inaction-cannot-excuse-limitation-delay\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/condonation-of-delay-bureaucratic-inaction-Jharkhand-High-Court.webp","datePublished":"2026-07-07T04:30:57+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/fd34de74f274cfdc852af1e7f13f510d"},"description":"Jharkhand High Court dismissed condonation of 762-day delay, holding bureaucratic file movement is not sufficient cause under S. 5 Limitation Act; government cannot claim special indulgence.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/07\/jharkhand-hc-bureaucratic-inaction-cannot-excuse-limitation-delay\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/07\/jharkhand-hc-bureaucratic-inaction-cannot-excuse-limitation-delay\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/07\/jharkhand-hc-bureaucratic-inaction-cannot-excuse-limitation-delay\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/condonation-of-delay-bureaucratic-inaction-Jharkhand-High-Court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/condonation-of-delay-bureaucratic-inaction-Jharkhand-High-Court.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"condonation of delay bureaucratic inaction Jharkhand High Court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/07\/jharkhand-hc-bureaucratic-inaction-cannot-excuse-limitation-delay\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bureaucratic Inaction Cannot Excuse Limitation Delay: Jharkhand High Court dismisses condonation plea"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/fd34de74f274cfdc852af1e7f13f510d","name":"Chandra Sharma","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/36ba7149e274113324ac8d01f3e104f48d3c4b93ddf418dc3ae8d94a3e855c6a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/36ba7149e274113324ac8d01f3e104f48d3c4b93ddf418dc3ae8d94a3e855c6a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/36ba7149e274113324ac8d01f3e104f48d3c4b93ddf418dc3ae8d94a3e855c6a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Chandra Sharma"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/chandra-sharma\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/condonation-of-delay-bureaucratic-inaction-Jharkhand-High-Court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/389575","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67544"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=389575"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/389575\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":389579,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/389575\/revisions\/389579"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/389576"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=389575"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=389575"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=389575"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}