Hon’ble Amitava Lala, J.—This Court is regularly observing that several Special Appeals are being placed in the list as ‘Special Appeal Defective’. On enquiry we have come to know that whenever Special Appeals are filed with application for condonation of delay, such appeals are normally being treated as ‘Special Appeal Defective’ in the list. Upon going through the records of the individual cases, we find that most of such appeals are filed by the State in the routine manner on some pretext or other. This gives us the impression whether latitude is to be shown to the appellant as because it is a State as a matter of course without verifying the sufficiency of the cause applicable to them or we shall shut our eyes, as because State is not similarly placed with an individual. Against this background we have to consider the individual applications.

2. In further, the present policy of the government, either Union or the State is that there should be sufficient curtailment of red-tapism to go ahead. The procedures are getting liberalized in respect of all activities in connection with public interest. If it is so, why the same principle will not be adopted in case of Court proceedings when pendency of litigations are piling up regularly, is unknown to the Court. Court is anxious about the circumstances. Defective appeals are also appeals so far as number of pendency is concerned.

3. Moreover, at the time of consideration of individual cases on the part of the State, not being an individual, we have to visualize what public interest will be subserved and whether any third party interest will be affected by allowing such application or not.

3. There is no doubt that law of limitation is made for all. But sufficiency of the cause is the source of information to the Court to come to a conclusion that by such sufficiency minimum latitude will be shown to the State or the Union differentiating them from individuals. But that does not necessarily mean that an unfettered latitude will be given to the State to file appeal/s as and when it requires taking the advantage of legal interpretations. Legal interpretations cannot travel beyond the law. Legal interpretations must have to be considered on the individual factual position and such individual position alone gives an indication to the mind of Court of law, whether it will pass an affirmative order or negative order. We are aware that we should not make any pedantic approach but liberal approach, how many approach is dependable upon the facts and circumstances of individual cases. No routine appeal by the State taking the advantage of the situation can be allowed to be sustained. Whenever a State is faced with an order it compels the State to give utmost importance to consider whether appeal should be filed or not. Obtaining permission from the appropriate authority to prefer an appeal is not a luxury at the cost of public exchequer at any time but at the time of genuine need. If so, no delay should be condoned which appears to be done intentionally. State cannot sit tight over the matter only on the ground of red-tapism giving a secondary importance to the process of Court of law. Court of law is not only out of generosity but also in public interest giving minimum possible latitude to the individual cases. That cannot be treated as weakness of the Court of law. This is a high time to consider the appeals of the State from this angle. It is to be remembered latitude can only be given to the State Authorities, if it is genuinely prevented from filing the appeal. Before our further discussion with regard to the factual background of the following individual cases, we have to say that learned Chief Standing Counsel wanted to satisfy the Court for condoning the delay on the strength of judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2005 SC 2191, State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO and others, based on various earlier judgments, which are dealt with therein. Hence, no de novo discussion is ne