ORDER :

1. The instant intra-court appeal, under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 03.09.2019 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 1312 of 2018 by which the writ petition has been allowed.

I.A. No. 1729 of 2020

2. The instant appeal is admittedly barred by limitation since there is delay of 156 days in preferring the appeal, therefore, an application being I.A. No. 1729 of 2020 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 156 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 paragraph 4 is that some time was taken in getting the certified copy of the impugned order and thereafter the department was communicated about the same.

At paragraph-5 it has been mentioned that the time was taken in taking decision to prefer the appeal and after some time, opinion was given to prefer the appeal and due to this, some conferences took place with the concerned law officer and instructions were given to procure all the related documents and pleading.

At paragraph-6 it has been mentioned that some time was taken in preparation of the statement of facts for preferring the appeal, settlement of the same with the concerned law officer and other decisions which were taken before handing over the same to the filing counsel for the purpose of preparing the final draft memo.

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 explanation for condonation of delay had been given, held at paragraph-6 as under:

“6. Law of limitation may harshly affect a particul