ORDER T.S. Doabia, J. 1. Shri R. C. Gupta, Counsel for the petitioner. On my asking Shri V. K. Sharma, Adv. appearing for respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the court below has erred in condoning the delay of seven days. 2. In the matter of condoning the delay when litigation is resorted to by a governmental agency different parameters can be adopted. See, observation made in Writ Petition No. 1235 of 1993 decided on 8-1-1996 since reported as State of M. P. v. Smt. Bhoori, (1996) 1 Recent Revenue Reporter 747. 3. See also the view expressed by the Supreme Court in the case reported as State of M. P. v. S. S. Akolkar, 1996(1) Recent Revenue Reporter 748. No doubt, the Supreme Court was dealing with the matter arising under Order 22, yet the court was of the view that the broad approach from public justice perspective is to be adopted. In para 7, it was observed as under : "It is settled law that the consideration for condonation of delay under section 5 of Limitation Act and setting aside of the abatement under Order 22 are entirely distinct and different. The Court always liberally considers the letter, though in some case, the Court may refuse to condone the delay under section 5 in filing the appeals. After the appeal has been filed and is pending, Government is not expected to keep watch whether the contesting respondent is alive or passed away. After the matter was brought to the notice of the counsel for the State, steps were taken even thereafter; after due verification belated application came to be filed. It is true that section 5 of the Limitation Act would be applicable and delay is required to be explained. The delay in official business requires its broach and approach from public justice perspective." This revision is accordingly found to be without merit and is dismissed.