Hon’ble Amitava Lala, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the State as against the claimants upon being aggrieved and/or dissatisfied with the judgment passed by the Court of reference on 25th January, 2006. The appeal is delayed by 145 days as per the report of the concerned department of this High Court. Accordingly, the appeal is made with a supportive application for condonation of delay. Therefore, we are of the view that such application for condonation of delay will be taken up first for the purpose of its perusal and passing an appropriate order.

2. We have gone through such application extensively. We find that the certified copies of the judgment and decree were applied on 28th January, 2006, which were made ready for delivery by the concerned Court below on 8th February, 2006 and 13th February, 2006 respectively and were delivered on 10th February, 2006 and 14th February, 2006 respectively. The opinion of the District Government Counsel was received by the Executive Engineer, Construction Division-II, Public Works Department, Bulandshahar on 18th February, 2006. The Executive Engineer wrote a letter to the Superintending Engineer, Bulandshahar on 27th February, 2006 for granting consent to file the appeal. Executive Engineer also requested the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bulandshahar vide letter dated 01st March, 2006 for getting the details of amount of Court fees. Superintending Engineer, in turn, on 8th March, 2006 made certain queries about filing of the appeal and the Executive Engineer replied the same on 22nd March, 2006. The Executive Engineer also wrote a letter on that very day to the Superintending Engineer for sanctioning the amount of Court fees and reminders were given on 15th May, 2006 and 29th May, 2006 by sending information to the Chief Engineer and Government. On 15th April, 2006 the matter was referred to the Chief Engineer, Meerut for granting sanction of amount of Court fees. On 19th April, 2006 the Chief Engineer, Meerut referred the matter to the Special Secretary, Public Works Department for obtaining permission of the Law Department. The State Government granted permission for filing the appeal vide its order dated 26th May, 2006, which was received in the office of the Executive Engineer on 6th June, 2006. A contact was made with the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel by such department on 12th June, 2006. However, further time was required for collecting the Court fees. On 29th June, 2006 the Chief Engineer made efforts to get the Court fees. After some persuasion ultimately the Government vide letter dated 22nd August, 2006 has granted the sanction for an amount of Rs. 2,77,463/- towards Court fees. Thereafter, vide letter dated 28th August, 2006 the Superintending Engineer requested the Engineer-in-Chief for final allocation of budget of Court fees. Thereafter, the appeal was prepared and filed before this Court. Although ultimately the date of filing has not been given therein but we find that the appeal was filed on 6th October, 2006. According to the State, there was no intentional delay on the part of it in preferring the appeal, therefore, the same will be condoned. In support of his contention, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants relied upon a judgment reported in AIR 1996 SC 1623 (State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and others) wherein it has been held that on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-making, file-pushing, and passing-on-the buck ethos, delay on the part of the State is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve, but the State represents collective cause of the community, but considerable delay of procedural red tape in the process of their making decision is a common feature. Therefore, certain amount of latitude is not impermissible.

3. According to us, factually the permission was given by the State for preferring the appeal when the period of preferring it was