IMPORTANT POINT
The court reinforced that the State is treated equally with other litigants regarding the condonation of delay, requiring a valid explanation for any delay.

JUDGMENT :

(Harish Tandon, J.) :

Re: CAN 1 of 2024 (MAT 1412 of 2024)

By way of this application brought under Section 5 of the Indian Limiation Act, the present appellants have sought condonation of delay in preferring this instant appeal. It appears from the report submitted by the Additional Stamp Reporter that there are 51 days of delay in preferring this instant appeal challenging the impugned orders dated 26.04.2024 and 30.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in connection with WPA 25712 of 2022.

2. It is stated by the appellants/petitioner that after passing the impugned order the Commissioner of School Education, West Bengal requested the learned Legal Remembrancer, Government of West Bengal to obtain certified photocopy of the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Bench. A proposal was placed by the Commissioner to the learned Legal Remembrancer on 15.05.2024 to accord approval in preferring the appeal. All the relevant documents except certified copy of the impugned orders were placed before the learned State Advocates who were engaged by the State to file the appeal against the impugned orders. Thereafter several reminders were sent to the learned Legal Remembrancer for obtaining the certified copy of the impugned orders and the certified copy of the impugned orders were obtained on 26.06.2024 after a few days of delay. It is stated by the appellants / petitioners that there was mistake on their part that they only applied for getting certified copy of the order dated 26.04.2024 instead of combined orders dated 26.04.2024 and 30.04.2024 and as such a further application was made for obtaining the certified copy of the orders on 28.06.2024 and ultimately the same was obtained on 05.07.2024. It is stated by the appellants that as soon as they obtained the certified copy of the impugned orders the learned State advocates filed the instant appeal.

3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the state submitted before us that there is a fair chance of success in the appeal and if the application praying for condoantion of delay in preferring the instant appeal is not allowed, the Appellants will suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated by any means.

4. We have anxiously considered the submission advanced by both the parties. Perused the grounds as stated by the appellants in the application for condonation of delay filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

5. The general principle underlying the condonation of delay is that courts have discretionary power to extend the time limit in cases where the delay was due to genuine and valid reasons. The courts examine each case on its merits and consider factors such as the explanation for the delay, the sufficiency of the cause shown, the absence of negligence, and the potential prejudice caused to the other party. The term “sufficient cause” is not defined explicitly and varies on a case-to-case basis. The Court has a wide discretion in determining what constitutes as sufficient cause, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

6. Can a mere narration of facts showing the slow-paced manner in which the files move from one table to another in an administrative setup be considered a sufficient explanation for breaching the limitation? Is it fair to take away a very valid ground for a counter-attack on the part of the private respondent merely because the state can provide an ‘explanation’ of how it may have caused an inordinate delay in making a filing? An ‘explanation’ is when all of the facts and layout of the cause are provided which helps to clarify the circumstances of a particular event to point out that something has happened due to no fault of the person seeking condonation. Insofar as the question as to condonation of delay by resorting to Section 5 of the Limitation Act is concerned, delay can be condoned if 'sufficient cause' is shown and the approach of the courts should be liberal guided by legal princip