M.R. SHAH, J.

RULE. Ms. Mamta Vyas, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no. 1, who can be said to be the main contesting party.

2. Present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been preferred by the applicants herein-State authorities requesting to condone the delay of 131 days in preferring the Letters Patent Appeal against the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 8778/2012.

3. We have heard Shri. Rohan Yagnik, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the applicants and Ms. Mamta Vyas, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 herein, who can be said to be the main contesting party at length. The grounds set out in support of the prayer/request to condone the delay are in paragraph 2 of the application. It is the case on behalf of respondent no. 1 that the delay has not been properly and sufficiently explained. Relying upon the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply, it is the case on behalf of respondent no. 1 that the facts pleaded in paragraph 2 are contrary to the actual facts, which are narrated in paragraph 2 of the affidavit-in-reply, and therefore, relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd. reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563 as well as in the case of State of U.P v. Amarnath Yadav reported in 2014 (2) SC 422, it is request of dismiss the present application.

4. We have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. Considering the averments made in the application in support of the prayer to condone the delay, more particularly, the averments made in paragraph 2, it cannot be said that the delay of 131 days in preferring the Letters Patent Appeal has not been sufficiently explained. We are satisfied that the delay has been sufficiently and properly explained. Considering the averments made in paragraph 2 and the averments made in paragraph 2 of the affidavit-in-reply, it does not appear that the averments made in paragraph 2 are contrary to the facts. There does not appear to be any willful and/or deliberate delay on the part of the applicants in not preferring the Appeal within the period of limitation. In the facts and circumstances of the case, decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Living Media India Ltd. (Supra) and in the case of Amarnath Yadav (Supra) shall not be of any assistance to respondent no. 1, more particularly, when as observed hereinabove, delay has been sufficiently and properly explained.

5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, present application is allowed and the delay caused in preferring the Appeal is hereby condoned. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.