The court laid down the principles to be considered in deciding an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, emphasizing the need for a liberal construction to advance substantial justice while ensuring that there is no negligence or inaction on the part of the applicant.

( 1 ) THESE four appeals have been filed by the State of U. P. u/ S. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act read with S. 96, C. P. C.

( 2 ) ALL these appeals are against a common judgment of the court below by which four references u/s. 18, Land Acquisition Act, which had been consolidated, were disposed of raising the compensation for the acquired land to Rs. 30. 00 per sq. yard.

( 3 ) THE appeals were filed beyond the period of limitation along with requisite application u/s. 5 Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. All these appeals are beyond time by more than 240 days. These are not the solitary cases where an appeal by the State Government has been filed with such long delay. In fact, if the experience we have had in this regard lately is any index, it would be an exception if an appeal is filed by the State within limitation for, as a rule, most of the appeals are accompanied by applications u/s. 5. So is the case with many of the public or local bodies.

( 4 ) THE affidavits that have been filed to support the delay condonation application merely recount a series of facts as to what lead to the delay due to time spent at various stages by the agencies involved and their multi-level authorities in an attempt to explain this delay. The respondent vehemently opposes on the ground that the affidavits fail to disclose any cause for delay and whatever is recited as cause of delay was neither justified nor properly supported by relevant documentary evidence.

( 5 ) MERITS of the case later. First we will try to examine as to on what considerations should the court decide an application u/ S. 5 Limitation Act. The law had been quite severe and stringent some time ago and the established view was that the delay must be explained day by day. The view taken by this Court in AIR 1976 ALLAHABAD 159 was that not only should the applicant show sufficient cause for the delay but must also explain the whole period of delay, day by day. In 1981 All LJ 176 the same view was reiterated that each days delay must be explained.

( 6 ) THERE has been another line of decisions whereunder the words sufficient cause were to receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice.

( 7 ) IN many cases question raised has been whether State should receive any special treatment in such matters or it should be treated alike with a private person. In AIR 1977 Him Pra 13 a Division Bench of that Court speaking through R. S. Pathak J. (as he then was) observed :"state has to be regarded as an ordinary litigant and whatever is not considered as sufficient ground for a private person cannot be considered a sufficient ground for the State. There can be no question of showing any latitude in favour of the State, subject to any special difficulty arising which may disable the counsel from filing it. Some allowance has to be given to the fact that such appeals have to pass through a variety of officers. "

( 8 ) SOMEWHAT similar observations have been made in two recent decisions of the Supreme Court, which in fact forms the sheet anchor of the submission made by the Standing Counsel. The two cases are: AIR 1987 SC 1353 and (G. Rame Gowda v. S. L. A. O. Banglore), AIR 1988 SC 897, which we propose to consider in detail.

( 9 ) OBSERVATIONS of Thakkar, J. in the first case to the extent relevant are :"principles of equity before law demands that litigants including the State as a litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner. There is no warrant for according step-motherly treatment when State is the applicant praying for condonation of delay. "

( 10 ) THE Court then culled out certain principles on which the cause of delay should be approached. The Supreme Court articulated the points thus :1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice bein