Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. versus KRISHNA PRADHAN & ORS

Decided
1 October 2010
Judges listed
MARKANDEY KATJU, T.S. THAKUR (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Hearing Adjourned

Citations

Official
[2010] 12 S.C.R. 201 · 2010 INSC 667
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Paragraph numbering in our copy is uncertain (unnumbered_in_numbered_era). Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Issue notice.

p. 202, margin B

In this case, second appeal before the High Court was filed after 501 days. In this Court also the petition has been filed after delay of more than one year.

p. 202, margin C

It appears that cases are coming up before this Court, and probably before the High Court also, where appeals or writ petitions are filed after inordinate delay and an explanation is sought to be given in the application for condonation of delay in such cases filed by the government or the State Authorities

p. 202, margin C

that the file was moved from one desk to another or the approval was sought from the higher authority which took considerable time. We feel that the beneficiary of the judgment may be hand in glove with the officials in the Government Department who deal with the files, and files are suppressed for a long period, and then the appeal before the High Court or Supreme Court is filed after a long delay to get the appeal dismissed on the ground of delay. Huge amonts of public money of public property may be involved and the Government will be the loser on the technical point of limitation in such cases. This racket

p. 202, margin C

has been going on for a long time not only before the Supreme Court but also before the High Courts. Now the time has come that this racket should come to an end and the officials responsible for this be given severe punishment.

p. 202, margin F

The Chief Secretary for the State of Jharkhand will file an affidavit explaining what action has been taken against the officials causing the delay. In case, no action has been taken, reasons for the same be mentioned.

pp. 202–203, margin G

This practice is often adopted by officials of various State Governments and has become a regular feature. The explanation usually given for the delay is the red tape in government offices.

p. 203, margin A

It is high time that this mal-practice be severely rooted out and an effectual mechanism be adoptd all over the country so that such delays do not occur in future.

p. 203, margin B

Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Solicitor General of India, who is requested to assist us as amicus curiae.

p. 203, margin C

Copies shall also be sent to the Chief Secretaries of all the States so that effective action may be taken in this regard. Issue notice to all Chief Secretaries of States/Union Territories in India.

p. 203, margin C

Mr. Nagendra Rai, Sr. Advocates appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. He prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. List on 8.11.2010. R.P. Matter adjourned.

p. 203, margin D