The main legal point established in the judgment is the liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act to advance substantial justice and protect public interest.

JUDGMENT :

I.A.No.1 OF 2022

1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 150 days in filing the writ appeal.

2. The writ appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 05.01.2022 in W.P.No.26092 of 2021. The appeal was filed on 22.08.2022. The respondent i.e the writ petitioner has filed Counter affidavit. The appellant-applicants have filed a reply affidavit, on 21.07.2023, to which any objection has not been filed.

3. Sri G.V.S. Kishore Kumar, learned Government Pleader for the appellant-applicants submits that in view of the facts stated and cause shown in the affidavit and the reply affidavit there is sufficient cause. The delay deserves to be condoned. He placed reliance in the cases of State of Haryana vs. Chandra Mani and others, (1996) 3 SCC 132, Sridevi Datla vs. Union of India and others, (2021) 5 SCC 321, Raheem Shah and another vs. Govind Singh and others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 910.

4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 herein, submits that the cause shown is not sufficient to condone the delay. The appellants have not explained each and every day’s delay. He has placed reliance in the cases of Postmaster General and others vs. Living Media India Limited and another, (2012) 3 SCC 563 and State of Uttar Pradesh though Executive Engineer and another vs. Amar Nath Yadav, (2014) 2 SCC 422.

5. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.

6. The appellant/applicants have submitted in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1 of 2023 as also in the reply affidavit, that the copy of the order dated 20.01.2022 was received from the Registry on 02.03.2022. Thereafter, on perusal of the judgment, the officials of the appellants were advised to secure all the relevant papers for filing the appeal vide letter dated 17.03.2022 the Government took decision to file appeal and intimated the office of the Government Pleader on 21.07.2022. After obtaining the material papers and the draft affidavit, the draft of writ appeal was preferred on 25.07.2022. It is further submitted that the delay is not willful or deliberate. Time was consumed due to the departmental proceedings in obtaining necessary permission. It is further submitted that on merits the appellants have got good case and if the delay is not condoned, much loss would be caused to the appellants as the matter pertains to grant of additional amount of pension burdening the State Exchequer, to which the writ petitioner is legally not entitled.

7. In Raheem Shah (supra), the Hon’ble Apex court referred to its previous judgment, in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. Mst. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107, and held as under in paras 5 and 6:

“5. This Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 has held as hereunder:

“The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on `merits’. The expression `sufficient cause’ employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice-that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that:

1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.

2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the partie