Certain amount of latitude is permissible while considering the condonation of delay application made by the State, as decisions are taken at a slow pace and it is the State that ultimately suffers from the delay.

Heard learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Sri L.K.Singh, learned counsel, who has put in appearance on behalf of the sole claimant-respondent.

1. Learned Standing Counsel presses his application for condonation of delay in filing this appeal. The Stamp Reporter has reported that this appeal is beyond time by 1 year and 166 days. The application for condonation of delay is supported with an affidavit.

2. Various paragraphs of the affidavit indicate the steps taken by the respondents for the purpose of filing this appeal after obtaining opinion from the District Government Counsel and permission of competent authorities for filing the appeal. It is stated that the aforesaid process for obtaining approval and completing the record for filing this appeal has taken time and hence the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned.

3. While considering the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani and others reported in AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1623 in paragraph 10, which is quoted below:-

"10. It is notorious and common knowledge that delay in more than 60 percent of the cases filed in this Court--be it by private party or the State--are barred by limitation and this Court generally adopts liberal approach in condonation of delay finding somewhat sufficient cause to decide the appeal on merits. It is equally common knowledge that litigants including the State are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner. When the State is an applicant, praying for condonation of delay, it is common knowledge that on account of impersonal machinery and the 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. It is axiomatic that decisions are taken by officer/agencies proverbially at slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table and keeping it on table for considerable time causing delay--intentional or otherwise--is a routine. 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. If the appeals brought by the State are lost for such default no person is individually affected but what in the ultimate analysis suffers, is public interest. The expression "sufficient cause" should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day's delay. The factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the Governmental conditions would be cognizant to and require adoption of pragmatic approach in justice-oriented process. The Court should decide the matters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. No separate standards to determine the cause laid by the State vis-a-vis private litigant could be laid to prove strict standards of sufficient cause. The Government at appropriate level should constitute legal cells to examine the cases whether any legal principles are involved for decision by the Courts or whether cases require adjustment and should authorise the officers take a decision or give appropriate permission for settlement. In the event of decision to file appeal needed prompt action should be pursued by the officer responsible to file the appeal and he should be made personally responsible for lapses, if any. Equally, the State cannot be put on the same footing as an individual. The individual would always be quick in taking the decision whether he would pursue the remedy by way of an appeal or application since he is a person legally injured while State is an impersonal machinery working through its officers or servants. Co