The Court held that the State failed to show sufficient cause for not filing the appeals within the prescribed time and that the threats and refusal to accept the brief, as narrated, were all long after the expiry of the period.

BARUAH, J.:- The above miscellaneous cases arising out of the above writ appeals involve similar questions of law and fact and, therefore, we dispose of all these misc. cases by a common judgment. In these misc. cases the applicant has filed applications for condonation of delay, if there be any, in preferring the appeals.

2. All these appeals were filed against a common judgment and order dated 15-12-92 passed by a learned single Judge in Civil Rule No. 77/92 and others. The judgment was delivered on 15-12-92. However, all the appeals were filed on 4-11-94. Therefore, there has been a delay of about I year 11 months. In the applications for condonation of delay, the applicant the State of Manipur, have stated, inter alia, that the Civil Rule No. 77 / 92 was filed by the respondent in the Writ Appeal No. 70/94.A common judgment and order was passed on 15-12-92 with direction to the State Government to appoint the teachers selected by the D.P.C. and, thereafter, the teachers who failed to qualify, within a period of six months from the date of lifting of ban imposed by Govt. The Secretary (Education) put up a note with a suggestion to prefer appeals against the said judgment before the appellate Court. On 18-2-93, Minister approved the note of the Secretary. Thereafter, official notes had been exchanged and series of meetings were held. Besides, efforts were made for approval of the proposal to prefer appeals by the Law Department.

3. On August 23, 1993, Secretary (Education) put up a note in his file that the Addl. Government Advocate expressed his reluctance to file the appeals. Situated thus, after various notes, on 3-11-93 a decision was taken to convene a meeting with the Advocate General. Secretary (Law and Addl. Government Advocate. However, the meeting could not be held as the file was somewhere else. In between many orders had been issued directing the Government Advocate to file the appeals. Thereafter, on 5-5-94 it was decided to engage another counsel (Mr. Ashok Potsangbam) to prefer those appeals. Besides, Secretary (Education) also put up a note indicating that he was threatened in this matter. Again on 20-5-94 Secretary (Law) also reported that he was threatened. Mr. Ashok Potsangbam, counsel engaged to prefer the appeals was also threatened. Another note was put by the Secretary (Education) on 15-6-94 that two unidentified persons had threatened him with dire consequence. A senior counsel also declined to accept the applicants brief, when approached. By all these, the applicant have made an attempt to show that there had been several threats to the high officials including the Special counsel, a senior counsel refused to accept applicants brief, when approached. Many of the employees of the applicant also did not co-operate in preferring the appeals. Even the Advocate General suggested for implementation of the impugned judgment though in the opinion of the Law Department the impugned judgment and order dated 15-12-92 needed reconsideration by an appellate Court. Because of these peculiar circumstances the applicant could not prefer the appeal within the period prescribed. According to the applicant the facts and circumstances as stated, clearly show sufficient cause for which the applicant could not prefer the appeals in time. The applicant have further stated that a review was filed before the learned single Judge (Civil Review No. 821(T) of 1994) against the said judgment. The said review was disposed of rejecting the prayer for review by an order dated 20-9-94. However, the learned single Judge granted 15 days time to prefer appeal.

4. We have heard Mr. A. Potsangbam, learned Special counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and Mr. T. Nanda Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of some of the respondents.

5. Mr. Potsangbam, learned Special counsel appearing for the applicant submits before us that because of the anomalous situation the applicant could not prefer the appeal within time. Be