JUDGMENT G.D. Dube, J. - An application has been moved under S. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 68 days in filing the appeal. 2. The impugned order was passed on 25th March, 1989. Notice for readiness of copy was posted on the Notice-board on 25th May, 1989. Copy was delivered on the same day to the applicant. The appeal was filed on 20-9-1989 with a court fee stamp of Rs. 10/- only. There was a deficiency of Rs. 53,422- 90. The Stamp reporter had reported on 19- 9-1989 that by that day it was beyond time by 67 days. Thus on 20-9-1989 the appeal was beyond time by 68 days. The deficiency in the court fee was made good on 15th November, 1989. 3. The applicant has alleged in the affidavit accompanying the S. 5 application that after the judgment had been pronounced the Collector instructed the District Government Counsel and paid expenses for obtaining the certified copy of the judgment. The District Government counsel applied for copy on 5-5-1989. After receiving copy the Collector sent the judgment to State Government for issuing instructions for filing appeal. The State Government issued instructions on 22nd July, 1989. The said instructions were received in the office of Collector on 28th July, 1989. It has been alleged that Rajnath clerk of the office of Special Land Acquisition, Officer proceeded to Allahabad on 2nd August, 1989 with a copy of judgment and made inquiries from the office of Standing Counsel regarding the payment of Court fee and other expenses in the aforesaid appeal. This clerk was informed about the expenses and court fee and returned back next day for obtaining expenses. The clerk came to know that there was strike in the High Court after 10th August, 1989 and as such he was advised to come to Allahabad only on 21st August, 1989 when the strike was likely to come to an end. It was also urged that the High Court was closed due to strike and as such appeal could not be filed. It was alleged that the appeal could not be filed due to administrative reason. 4. The respondent contested this application alleging that there was a negligence on the part of the administration from the very beginning. The administration applied for copy of the judgment after one and half month. It was alleged that the appeal could not be filed due to administrative reason. 4. The respondent contested this application alleging that there was a negligence on the part of the administration from the very beginning. The administration applied for copy of the judgment after one and half month. They have not disclosed as to when the papers were sent to State Government, when the copies were obtained on 25-5-1989. The State Government was also negligent in issuing the instruction on 22-7-1989 when the limitation was only upto 15th July, 1989. They denied that the strike had any effect on institution of the appeal. The registry was open during the strike and the lawyers were free to do their chember work. It was alleged that the excuse of the state counsel that they could not file the appeal due to strike was incorrect. 5. After the affidavit has been exchanged we heard the counsel for the parties. After going through the file we noticed that the stamps were purchased on different dates between 3-11-1989 to 7-11-1989 even though it was alleged that the whole expenses had been made available to the Chief Standing Counsel's office on 21st August, 1989. Consequently the Chief Standing Counsel was afforded an opportunity to explain the above anomaly by filing a supplementary affidavit. 6. Ravi Prakash. an assistant, of the office of Chief Standing Counsel filed his affidavit stating that official of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Azamgarh came to Allahabad on 21-1-1989 and handed over a Bank Draft of Rs. 1,16,000/-. The Accountant deposited the Bank Draft in State Bank of India. The dealing assistant of the First Appeal Section of the Chief Standing Counsel submitted voucher of court fee stamp of Rs. 10/- to file the First Appeal on 19-9-1989. Consequently he has supplied the said court fee stamp. The appeal clerk had submitted another voucher of Rs. 53,422-50 to make good the deficiency. Ravi Prakash stated that when he received such voucher, he submitted the cheque and voucher to the Treasury Officer for transfer credit for obtaining stamps from Treasury Office. He purchased the stamps of petty amounts from the stamp venders of High Court, Allahabad. It was stated that stamp of amount of Rs. 300/- was purchased from the stamp vendor of the High Court on 6-11-1989 and were kept in the office for supply on demand. He purchased the stamps of petty amounts from the stamp venders of High Court, Allahabad. It was stated that stamp of amount of Rs. 300/- was purchased from the stamp vendor of the High Court on 6-11-1989 and were kept in the office for supply on demand. He stated that there was no slackness on the part of. the accountant Ravi Prakash in supplying the different court fee stamp in the case. 7. As against the affidavit of Ravi Prakash, Brij Nath Singh has filed a supplementary counter affidavit. He reiterated the fact stated in his first counter affidavit. He also stated that when the Accountant keeps the court fee stamps in his cash box and purchased them from the local stamp venders also then there was no justification in filing the appeal with a court fee stamp of Rs. 10/- only. It was urged that there was a gross-negligence on the part of the clerk concerned dealing appeal in not demanding the full stamps on the date of filing the appeal. 8. Ravi Prakash and Rajendra Nath had filed another supplementary rejoinder affidavit explaining the reasons for supply of Court fee stamp purchased on different dates. He says that court fees stamps purchased by him are being kept in his cash box. Whenever required by the dealing assistant he supply the court fee stamp from his box. It has been stated that Rang Bahadur, upper division assistant, has required the court fee stamp and he has supplied them. He stated that in another case he purchased stamp worth Rs. 7,50.000/- from the treasury, Court fee stamps of Rs. 25,000/- denomination were left in his box which he had supplied to the dealing assistant. 9. Rang Bahadur has also stated that since money was received through draft hence on 21-8-89 only a court fee stamp Rs. 10/- was affixed. When the appeal was listed before this Bench for hearing the deficiency was made good within the time allowed. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In F.A. No. 613 of 1989, State of U.P. v. Surendra in which judgment has been delivered today. 10/- was affixed. When the appeal was listed before this Bench for hearing the deficiency was made good within the time allowed. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In F.A. No. 613 of 1989, State of U.P. v. Surendra in which judgment has been delivered today. We have discussed the cases of Ram Lal v. Rewa Coal Field, AIR 1962 SC 361 ; Kedarnath v. Zumberlal, AIR 1016 Nagpur 39; State of U.P. v. Bahadur Singh, 1983 All WC 766 L : AIR 1983 SC 845 ; Bhag Singh v. Major Daljit Singh, (1987) 2 All Rent Cas 300 (SC); Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mat Katiji, AIR 1987 SC 1353 and also the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in F.A. No. 710 of 1989, State of U.P. v. Phota, along with three other cases decided on 7th March 1991 in which that Division Bench had noticed the cases of G. Ramegowda v. S.L.A.D. Banglore, AIR 1988 SC 897 and Mrs. Sandhya Rani Sarkar v. Smt. Sudha Rani, AIR 1978 SC 537 . After considering all these cases we have summarised the legal position as it emerged from the decision considered by us in the following words : "(i) State and the private individual both stand on the same footing and should be treated alike. In the case of the State however, while construing the cause shown the court should be alive to the impersonal nature of State machinery loaded as it is with inherited bureaucratic methodology inspired with note-making, fire-pushing, and passing on the buck ethos. Thus some delay may be inevitable and this should receive a more liberal consideration and is not to be viewed in a pedantic manner. (ii) Approach in considering the cause shown should be such which would advance cause of substantial justice rather than throttle it. (iii) The party which seeks condonation must also bear the burden of showing that despite all necessary steps being taken to file the appeal within time it failed due to cause beyond its control. There must be absence of negligence or. inaction and also no lack of bonafitie, should be attributable,to it. (iv) Only on crossing these hurdles can an application for condonation, succeed. However each case, deserves to, be decided on its own, facts. and ,circumstances and no straight jacket for can be prescribed." 11. There must be absence of negligence or. inaction and also no lack of bonafitie, should be attributable,to it. (iv) Only on crossing these hurdles can an application for condonation, succeed. However each case, deserves to, be decided on its own, facts. and ,circumstances and no straight jacket for can be prescribed." 11. In this case, the appellants had several opportunities to explain the delay. Despite pointing out by the respondents about the omission '.to explain the delay as to,when the papers were sent to the State Law Department for permission to file.appeal, no, attempt has been, made to disclose this date so far. It was necessary for the State Government to, have placed all the material before this Court on the basis of which it could come to the conclusion that even though in the State machinery several hands and desks are involved, yet every step had been taken to advance the prosecution of the case. The State Government has concealed the material facts for the purposes of this case. 12. It has not been stated by any one of the deponents filing affidavit on behalf of the State that the Chief Standing Counsel or the Standing Counsel working in the High Court was also on strike during the strike of the High Court. If the Chief Standing Counsel or the Standing Counsel was not on strike, then there was no justification to wait for the end of the strike of the lawyers. The Registry was open even during strike. The Chief Standing Counsel or the Standing Counsel under his instructions could present the appeal in the Registry. Hence the explanation of the State that he appeal could not be filed on account of strike is not worthy of acceptance. 13. It is strange that even though the money had been placed at the disposal of the office of the Chief Standing Counsel on 21-8-1989, the appeal was presented with a deficiency of court fee of Rs. 10/- and this deficiency was made good after more than two-and-a-half months. The statement of Ravi Prakash discloses that he keeps a stock of court fee stamps in his cash box and supplies them as and when a demand is made by the clerk concerned. In such a circumstance, the appeal could have been filed with full court fee on the date of presentation by placing a demand of the full court fee. In such a circumstance, the appeal could have been filed with full court fee on the date of presentation by placing a demand of the full court fee. No satisfactory explanation has been given as to why Rang Bahadur head placed a demand of court fee of Rs. 10/- only when the amount of full court fee had been placed at the disposal of the office of Chief Standing Counsel. 14. Considering the above facts, we find that the State Government has failed to explain the delay. The application under Section 6 of the Indian Limitation Act is rejected. Consequently, the memo of appeals is also rejected.