JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. Two writ petitions are taken up for consideration analogously as they originate from proceedings between the same parties and it relates to the same land.

2. WPLRT 92 of 2024 is at the behest of the State and its functionaries and directed against an order refusing to grant interim relief in the original application of the Birds Jute and Exports Limited in O.A. No.1237 of 2024.

3. WPLRT 129 of 2024 is at the behest of the private persons (Rototron Containers Private Limited) who claims right, title and interest in respect of the land in question.

4. Rototron Containers Private Limited is aggrieved by the order dated August 14, 2024 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in M.A. No.547 of 2024 condoning a delay of 626 days in making and filing O.A. No.1237 of 2024 (LRTT).

5. As a matter of convenience, we requested learned Senior Advocate appearing for Rototron Containers Private Limited to address the Court first.

6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Rototron Containers Private Limited submits that, O.A. No.1237 of 2024 was filed at the behest of the State and its functionaries belatedly. There is a delay of 626 days in making and filing the original application. Such delay was not sufficiently explained in the application for condonation of delay. He refers to the application for condonation of delay. He submits that, there is no prayer for condonation of delay. In any event, he submits that, sufficient cause was not shown in such application. He refers to the averments made in such application. He submits that, the State and its functionaries did not explain any incident occurring within the statutory prescribed period of 60 days in making and filing the original application before the Tribunal, which prevented the State and its functionaries from filing the original application within time.

7. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Rototron Containers Private Limited relies upon (2008) 17 Supreme Court Cases 448 (Pundlik Jalam Patil (Dead) by LRS, vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and Another), (2014) 11 Supreme Court Cases 351 (Brijesh Kumar and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others) and 2024 SCC OnLine SC 513 ( Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By L.Rs. and Others vs. Special Deputy Collector (LA)) in support of his contention that, sufficient cause must exist within the prescribed period of limitation and that, such cause need be explained. Moreover, the merit of the case is of no consequence while considering an application for condodnation of delay.

8. Relying upon (2020)10 Supreme Court Cases 654 ( The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Bherulal) and (2021) 6 Supreme Court Cases 460 (Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) represented by Executive Engineer vs. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Private Limited, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Rototron Containers Private Limited submits that, Government is not a favoured litigant.

9. Learned Advocate appearing for the State submits that, the delay was of 626 days. He refers to the merits of the case. He submits that, Rototron Containers Private Limited was claiming independent right, title and interest in respect of the land in question through another private party, which such private party recorded its name in the record of rights, illegally. Birds Jute and Exports Limited is claiming rights through the State. Since the State’s right is being questioned by Rototron Containers Private Limited, State thought it prudent to prefer an independent appeal. He submits that, the order under challenge in the Tribunal was passed without jurisdiction and without hearing the State.

10. Learned Advocate appearing for the State draws the attention of the Court to the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. According to him, the delay was adequately explained. Moreover, he refers to the impugned order of the Tribunal and submits that, both the learned Members of the Tribu