Jayant M. Patel, J.

1. The present application being Civil Application No. 11448 of 2015 is for condonation of delay of 1200 days roughly more than 3 1/2 years in preferring the appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge. As the delay was for a long period of 1200 days, we had also heard learned Counsel for the applicant-appellant on merits of the appeal.

2. On the aspect of condonation of delay, if the matter is considered as it is, there is no sufficient explanation whatsoever except the economical condition. The ground of paralytic effect on the body is alleged but no supporting document is produced. Further, on which date, the applicant was paralyzed and when he became capable to move are also not given except the vague statement. Even if the factum of withdrawal of the earlier Letters Patent Appeal and the filing of the review application and dismissal thereof are considered, we do not find that such can be said to be sufficient explanation for condonation of delay since even after the review application, the appellant cannot be said to have taken action well in time. Merely because review application is preferred, the limitation would not get automatically extended. Under these circumstances, the explanation cannot be said to be sufficient to exercise the discretion for condonation of delay of such long period of 1200 days. At this stage, we may usefully refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limited v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another (2010) 5 SCC 459, 2010 (88) AIC 220 (SC), and more particularly the observations made at paragraphs 14, 15, and 16, which read as under:--

"14. We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the Courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time.

15. The expression "sufficient cause" employed in section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statutes is elastic enough to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub-serves the ends of justice. Although, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate - Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107, N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123,and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil (2001) 9 SCC 106. (Emphasis supplied)

16. In dealing with the applications for condonation of delay filed on behalf of the State and its agencies/instrumentalities this Court has, while emphasizing that same yardstick should be applied for deciding the applications for condonation of delay filed by private individuals and the State, observed that certain amount of latitude is not impermissible in the latter case because the State represents collective cause of the community and the decisions are taken by the officers/agencies at a slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table consumes considerable time causing delay - G. Ramegowda v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, (1988) 2 SCC 142, State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani, (1996) 3 SCC 132, State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra, (1996) 9 SCC 309, State of Bihar v. Ratan Lal Sahu, (1996) 10 SCC 635, State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao, (2005) 3 SCC 752, 2005 (29)