JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. The only question of limitation is involved in this case, as such, with the consent of the parties the appeal is being disposed of finally at this stage. 2. Mr. Garg appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the papers remained pending with the Law Department upto 13th September 1984 and the Officer Incharge was appointed by the Law Department on 13th September 1984. Law Officer Incharge was directed by the Administrative Department (Home) on 15th September 1984 and Mr. Anand Prakash Sharma was appointed as advocate. The limitation expired on 15th September 1984 and the appeal has been submitted on 17th September 1984. 3. Learned Government Advocate has taken a ground in Para No 3 of the memo of appeal and has stated therein that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has decided in number of cases that the State Government cannot be considered at par with the private litigant and the Court should see that the material justice is delivered and the cases/appeals are not dismissed merely on technical grounds, such as, limitation. We expect from the Government if this ground is taken then they will abide by this and they will not raise the plea in any case. Government should be honest and should not raise the plea of limitation. Mr. Garg, Govt. Advocate was asked to show a single citation in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has said that the State Government cannot be considered at par with other litigants. Mr. Garg could not cite a single citation, though, he argued the same point. Every litigant is equal before the Court and the State cannot be given a better privilege of being a bigger litigant. State must respect the law enacted by itself and if the State feels that the laws are not good then the State should see that the laws are amended. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the point of limitation. It is true that it is a case of mistake and laches on the part of the Law Department or its Officers. However, in the interest of justice application under section 5 which was moved at a very late stage, during the course of hearing of the appeal, should be allowed, Ordinarily, the application should have been submitted at the time of filing of the appeal. However, in the interest of justice application under section 5 which was moved at a very late stage, during the course of hearing of the appeal, should be allowed, Ordinarily, the application should have been submitted at the time of filing of the appeal. But, every one knows the affairs of the State that no one takes care of the law and arguments are submitted that the State is above the law. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State must understand what is the law and the State should see that the interest of the tax payer is safeguarded by proper representation and by not throwing the case in the field just like a Foot Ball. If the State suffers because of its negligence, inadvertance and lethargic handling of the cases the Court cannot be blamed and the argument that the State should be given privilege of being a bigger litigant and should not be compared at par with the ordinary litigant, cannot be accepted. Though, it is a case of negligence, yet, the delay is condoned. 5. In the result, the appeal is accepted on the following terms and conditions:- (i) That the State shall pay Rs. 2000/- as cost to the respondents within a period of six weeks from today, failing which it shall be presumed that the State does not want to press the appeal and this appeal shall stand dismissed for want of non-payment of costs. If the respondent is not available the amount may be deposited in the first appellate Court. (ii) That the State Government is directed to take disciplinary action against the defaulting officer who has not taken the reasonable steps in the matter. If more than one officers are responsible, then action should be taken against all and several and joint liability should be fixed and the loss incurred to the State should be recovered from them in addition to the punishment which is likely to be awarded in this case. 6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.Appeal disposed of. *******