ORDER

1.          The present appeal has been filed with a delay of 56 days. Along with the appeal, an application I.A. No. 7786 of 2019, seeking condonation of delay has been filed.  It is contented in the application that the copy of the impugned order had been received by the appellants only on 11.02.2019 and the period of limitation had started running w.e.f. 12.02.2019.  After the impugned order was received in the office of the Estate Officer, GMADA and thereafter the matter was examined by the legal cell.  The legal cell after examining sent the file to the Estate Officer (Housing).  The Estate Officer (Housing) marked the file to legal cell and said file was put up by officials of legal branch to the higher authorities of GMADA for taking approval for filing the first appeal.   The Chief Administrator gave approval for filing a first appeal.  After approval the file was sent to the office of Addl. Chief Administrator-cum-competent authority for appointing counsel and sanction was issued and all relevant record was sent to the panel counsel.  After receiving instructions, the counsel prepared draft first appeal and sent to the appellants for vetting. It was only after receiving the finally vetted draft, supporting affidavit, the present first appeal was filed. 

2.          It is submitted that since the appellant is a government department and there are various steps to be taken before final decision for filing an appeal and preparing of the documents can be taken, so delay was inevitable and had to happen because of the administrative reasons.  It is submitted that delay was unintentional and bona-fide; hence the delay should be condoned.  Although learned counsel for the appellants have mentioned various case laws in the application but has relied on only two judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hemlata Verma Vs. M/s ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. In Civil Appeal No. 5131 of 2019 decided on 01-07-2019 and in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. In Civil Appeal No. 460 of 1987 decided on 19.02.1987 during the course of arguments.

3.          We have heard the arguments and perused the relevant record.  The delay is not only attributed to the administrative reasons for movement of file from one desk to another, it is also apparent that the delay also occurred due to the response of the officers who took time in taking decisions which they obviously had not acted promptly.  All the officers certainly were aware of the fact that there is a period of limitation for filing of the appeal was only 30 days.  It is a settled proposition of law that parties are required to act diligently.  They are also required to explain the delay of each and every day.  The condonation is not a matter of right and the courts are refrained from exercising their jurisdiction to condone the delay where no sufficient reasons are shown.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the catena of judgments and also in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (Supra) has clearly held as under:

“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 being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

3.         “Every day’s delay must be explained” does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour’s delay, every second’s delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.

4.         When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.

5.         T