The court must be satisfied that there is sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing an appeal, and mere administrative delay or engagement of staff in other work is not sufficient cause.

This petition is to condone the delay of 686 days in filing the appeal.

2. This petition has arisen in this way:

There was land acquisition proceeding under which certain lands were acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to Adi Dravidars. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at Rs.100 per cent. The matter was referred under Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the court, i.e., to the learned Sub Judge, Ranipet, who took the reference on file in L.A.O.P.No.3 of 1994. The learned Sub Judge enhanced the compensation at Rs.375 per cent. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Sub Judge, the appellant, the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Adi Dravidars Welfare, Vellore, has come forward with an appeal to this Court. The judgment was pronounced 8. 1996. The certified copies were obtained on 9. 1996, but the appeal could not be filed in time. There had been a delay of 686 days in filing the appeal. The reason given by the appellant in his affidavit is that during November to February, 1998, the entire staff was fully engaged in general election and the post of Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, was vacant for three months from 1. 1998, that the Collector had taken 176 days for according sanction for filing the appeal, that it was due to administrative delay; that the Collector has to look after the development works of the district, law and order problems etc. and therefore, there had been a delay and the delay should be condoned.

3. The respondent filed counter, contending that the delay has not been properly explained, and that the reasons given in the affidavit are all flimsy reasons.

4. Heard both the sides, It is evident that the learned Sub Judge has pronounced judgment on 8. 1996. The copy application was filed on 18. 1996 and the copies were made ready on 9. 1996. No cause is given for not preferring an appeal from 9. 1996 to November, 1998. Though it is stated that during the month of November to February, 1998, the staff members were fully engaged in general election work. Why there is delay from 9. 1996 to November, 1997 had not been explained. Then again, the fact that post of Special Tahsildar was vacant from 1. 1998 is also not an acceptable ground to condone the delay, because it is not as if none would have been incharge of that post. After all, the maxim ‘The king is dead; long live the king’ applies to all governmental organisations. Then again, the engagement of the staff from November to February, 1998 in election work is not an acceptable for the delay in sending letter to the Collector for sanction on 4. 1998. Admittedly, the Collector has taken 176 days in according sanction. It is stated that this is all administrative exigencies. Such contention cannot at all be accepted.

5. Thelearned counsel for the respondent cited the following authorities to stress that the delay in this case should not be condoned.

.• (i) In Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Sakuntala Ganapathy Rao , (1998)3 C.T.C. 170 (D.B.) C.Shivappa and K.Natarajan, JJ., have pointed out that reason for delay mentioned as “administrative delay”, is not a proper explanation to show that it has sufficient cause. Their Lordships have observed that the legal right accrued in favour of other party due to expiry of limitation for filing appeal should not be light-heartedly disturbed and discretion vested in court to condone delay should be exercised to advance substantial justice when party approaching court is not guilty of negligence or inaction or want of bona fides.

.• (ii) In P.K.Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and another P.K.Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and another P.K.Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and another , J.T. (1998)7 S.C. 21 where there had been delay of 565 days, it was held the explanation showing that “Advocate Generals office was fed up with so many arbitration cases pending consideration, can be hardly taken as a reasonable, satisfactory or even proper explanation.

.• (iii) In K