JUDGMENT :

Prasenjit Biswas, J.

In Re: CAN 1 of 2024

1. This is an application filed at the behest of the appellants/petitioners seeking for condonation of delay in preferring the instant appeal challenging the order dated 13.07.2023 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in connection with WPA 18757 of 2022. As per report submitted by the Additional Stamp Reporter there is a delay of 284 days in preferring this appeal.

2. It is stated by the petitioner that they received the order from their learned Advocates on 31.08.2023 and immediately thereafter they sought instruction from the concerned department that what course of action is to be taken to the said impugned order. The department decided to prefer appeal against the said impugned order dated 23.11.2023 and the same was finalized on 20.12.2023 by engaging learned Advocate. As per request of the department the learned Advocate on record applied to obtain a certified copy of the impugned order. It is stated by the petitioners that the learned Advocate although applied for getting certified copy of the order but somehow it was misplaced and went out of his mind. When the department gave a reminder to the learned Advocate for filing appeal against the impugned order then it has come to its knowledge from the learned Advocate that the counterparts of application for getting certified copy of the order has been lost. It is further stated by the petitioners that in the mean time a contempt application was taken out by the writ petitioner and as such a fresh application was made on 10.04.2024 for getting the certified copy of the order and ultimately on 22.04.2024 certified copy of the impugned order was obtained by the petitioners. Thereafter proposal for preferring appeal against the impugned order was approved by the authority concerned and the learned Advocate on record was requested to prepare the memo of appeal. Thereafter learned Advocate prepared a draft memo of appeal which was ultimately settled with the learned Senior Advocate and sent to the department for its approval. The learned Advocate got it back from the department concerned on 16.04.2024 and final approval was received by the learned Advocate on 30.04.2024 with a request by the department for filing the appeal and connected application. As such the appeal was filed challenging the said impugned order passed by the learned Single Bench along with an application with a prayer for condonation of delay in preferring the same.

3. We have anxiously considered the submissions 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.

4. 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.

5. Can a mere narration of facts showing the slow-paced manner in which the files move from one table to another in an administrative set-up 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 co