ORDER :

1. The instant intra-court appeal, under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 05.02.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 7546 of 2013 by which the writ petition has been allowed.

I.A. No. 8211 of 2018

2. The instant appeal is admittedly barred by limitation since as per the office note dated 17.07.2023, there is delay of 795 days in preferring the appeal, therefore, an application being I.A. No. 8211 of 2018 has been filed for condoning such delay.

3. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the instant intra-court appeal has been field after inordinate delay of 795 days, deems it fit and proper, to first consider the delay condonation application before going into the legality and propriety of the impugned order on merit

4. Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner has submitted that delay in preferring the appeal may be condoned by allowing the Interlocutory Application on the basis of grounds shown therein treating the same to be sufficient.

5. The grounds for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal, as has been mentioned in the interlocutory application at that the order was communicated to the Department on 07.03.2018 and thereafter for preparing note-sheet, the matter was placed before the Under Secretary/Deputy Secretary on 04.04.2018 and thereafter, the matter was placed before the Joint Secretary of the Department on 10.04.2018. Then, the matter returned for discussion to the Under Secretary through the Deputy Secretary on 12.04.2018.

Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Joint Secretary and direction was issued to prepare the grounds of appeal and after preparation of the grounds of appeal, the matter was placed before the Joint Secretary on 24.04.2018 and before the Special Secretary and the Secretary on 27.04.2018. Thereafter, as per the direction of the Department, the concerned file was placed before the learned Advocate General on 29.05.2018 and thereafter, the memo of appeal was drafted and filed.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants on delay condonation application and before considering the same, this Court, deems it fit and proper to refer certain legal proposition as has been propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court with respect to the approach of the Court in condoning the inordinate delay.

7. There is no dispute about the fact that generally the lis is not to be rejected on the technical ground of limitation but certainly if the filing of appeal suffers from inordinate delay, then the duty of the Court to consider the application to condone the delay before entering into the merit of the lis.

8. It requires to refer herein that the Law of limitation is enshrined in the legal maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties, rather the idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time, as has been held in the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Brijesh Kumar and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others, (2014) 11 SCC 351.

The Privy Council in General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Ltd. vs. Janmahomed Abdul Rahim, (1939-40) 67 IA 416, relied upon the writings of Mr. Mitra in Tagore Law Lecturers, 1932, wherein, it has been said that:

“A Law of limitation and prescription may appear to operate harshly and unjustly in a particular case, but if the law provides for a limitation, it is to be enforced even at the risk of hardship to a particular party as the Judge cannot, on equitable grounds, enlarge the time allowed by the law, postpone its operation, or introduce exceptions not recognized by law.”

In P.K. Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala, (1997) 7 SCC 556, the Apex Court while considering a case of condonation of delay of 565 days, wherein no explanation much less a reasonable or satisfactory explanat