JUDGMENT

KRISHNA IYER, J.:—Having granted special leave we have heard counsel on both sides in this appeal right away on all the points involved - of course with their consent and preparedness.

2. The State, the appellant, has urged that the High Court s judgment is wrong and our conclusion rests on a consideration of three obstacles in the way of the appellant which we now proceed to dispose of. The fact necessary to appreciate the controversy are minimal and emerge from the brief, though sufficient, discussion that follows. Brevity is not inconsistent with clarity and 1178 prolixity is not always or ever a virtue.

3. The first fatal objection to the Government s case stated in the order of the High Court, is the ratio in a Full Bench decision in Bikram Das v. The Financial Commr. Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh, AIR 1975 Punj and Har 1 (FB), which holds that Rule 3 relating to filing of Letters Patent Appeals is mandatory which in this instance, has not been complied with, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal in limine. The second obstacle in the way of the appellant is that assuming that Rule 3 is directory-cum-discretionary, an application for condonation of delay in compliance w