A liberal approach is essential in condoning delays, particularly for government bodies, ensuring that procedural delays do not hinder substantial justice.

JUDGMENT :

G. S. AHLUWALIA, J.

Heard on I.A. No. 3243/2025, an application for condonation of delay.

2. This review petition has been filed with a delay of 128 days.

3. Paragraphs 2 to 6 of I.A. No. 3243/2025 read as under:-

"(2) That, the order was passed on 18.11.2024 thereafter the authority approaches in the office of Additional Advocate General Gwalior for its legal opinion, which was given on 05.12.2024 dispatched on 06.12.2024. It is not out of place to mention here that as per legal opinion, the Department was required to take permission from the Law Department or from the Advocate General for filing the review petition. The permission from the Forest Department was given to file review on 16.01.2025, but because the permission from the Law Department has not been given, therefore, again request has been made to prepare the review. So in pursuance to the letter, again the legal opinion was given on 28.01.2025 and informed to the Forest Department to take permission either from the Advocate General or from the Law Department. Accordingly, the Advocate General has given the permission on 12.03.2025, which has been received subsequently on 13.03.2025. After receipt of permission from the Advocate General, the matter has been placed before the office of Additional Advocate General Gwalior for preparing the review, but on account of non-availability of certain documents as well as original record, it could not be immediately prepared, however it has been prepared after receipt of certain copies of original record. So the delay in filing the review petition is not deliberate and intentional and thus it deserves to be condoned.

(3) That, there is certain delay in filing the application as well as review petition is 128 days, which is based on bona-fide hence same deserves to be condoned. Thus the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held in the case of Executive Engineer Antiyur Town Vs. G. Arumgun (D) by LRs reported in 2015 (3) SCC 569 and delay may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice if that delay is procedural on as under:-

“4. As held by this Court in State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok AO and Others, the court must always take a justice-oriented approach while considering an application for condonation of delay. If the court is convinced that there had been an attempt on the part of the government officials or public servants to defeat justice by causing delay, the court, in view of the larger public interest, should take a lenient view in such situations, condone the delay, howsoever huge may be the delay, and have the matter decided on merits.”

(4) That, in the case of Government of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sushil Kumar Gupta & Ors reported in 2023 (5) SCC 650, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that:-

“2. It is true that there is a huge delay in preferring the appeal which is vehemently opposed by Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent(s)- original writ petitioner, however, taking into consideration the other similar orders passed by different benches in condoning such delay in preferring the appeal challenging the order(s) passed by the very High Court declaring that the acquisition is lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 and taking into consideration the fact that while passing the impugned judgment and order the High Court has relied upon and/or followed the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., reported in