JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.(Oral): Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Shri Chauhan has submitted that in this case proposal for filing the appeal was sent to Home department by the District Magistrate, Una and who in turn forwarded the case to Law Department for its opinion and it was only on 6th April, 1996 that the file was received back with the necessary opinion of the Law Department. Thereafter the file was sent to the office of learned Advocate General for filing the appeal and after preparing and finalizing the grounds of appeal, the same was filed in this Court on 20th April, 1996. Thus, according to Shri Chauhan, the delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned which was neither willful nor intentional. Shri Chauhan has further urged that in the event of delay being condoned, the only benefit the appellant would derive is that this case would be heard on merits and not any other benefit. Besides this, Shri Chauhan urged that the State did not gain to file anything by filing a time barred appeal. Further when the grant of substantial justice is pitted against defeating the legitimate claim on technical pleas like limitation, the latter would give way to the former. It was also submitted that the Court would not throw out the case of a party without doing substantial justice as the courts are respected for setting the rights of parties at rest. Lastly, it was urged that the transaction of business of government being done leisurely by officials of the State, who have no interest or evince personal interest at different levels, therefore, the insistence upon explaining every days delay may not be insisted upon and in case it is so done, it will be against public policy and resulting failure of justice. In support of present application, Shri Chauhan pointed out mat the insistence by the courts for explaining each dayss delay is out-dated and the intention of the court should be to adjudicate and finally set at rest the controversy in a Us on its merits rather than rejecting the claim on technical please like limitation. 3. In support of present application, Shri Chauhan pointed out mat the insistence by the courts for explaining each dayss delay is out-dated and the intention of the court should be to adjudicate and finally set at rest the controversy in a Us on its merits rather than rejecting the claim on technical please like limitation. 3. On the other hand, Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently urged while controverting the submissions made on behalf of the State that for all intents and purposes, this appeal shall be deemed to have been filed on 18th November, 1996 when the application for condonation of delay was filed, by the appellant-State and further there is no explanation of delay, and the so called explanation does not spell out any cause much less a sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal. 4. Shri Chauhan in support of his submissions, has placed reliance on (AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2750), Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, Kerel Appellant Vs. K. V. Ayisumma, Respondent. Relevant observations made by the Hon able Apex Court while allowing the application of the State for condonation of delay, which was rejected by the High Court of Kerela, are to the following effect:- "it is now settled law that when the delay was occasioned at the behest of the Government, it would be very difficult to explain the day to day delay. The transaction of the business of the Government being done leisurely by officers who had no or evince no personal interest at different levels. No one takes personal responsibility in processing the matters . expeditiously. As a fact at several stages, they take their own time to reach a decision. Even inspite of pointing at the delay, they do not take expeditious action for ultimate decision in filing the appeal. This case is one of such instances. It is true that Section 5 of the Limitation Act envisages explanation of the delay to the satisfaction of the Court and in matters of Limitation Act made no distinction between the State and the citizen. Nonetheless adoption of strict standard of proof leads to grave miscarriage of public justice, it would result in public mischief by skilful management of delay in the process of filing the appeal. The approach of the Court would be pragmatic but not pendandic. Nonetheless adoption of strict standard of proof leads to grave miscarriage of public justice, it would result in public mischief by skilful management of delay in the process of filing the appeal. The approach of the Court would be pragmatic but not pendandic. Under those circumstances, the Subordinate Judge had rightly adopted correct approach and had condoned the delay without insisting upon explaining every days delay in filing the review application in the light of the law laid down by this Court. The High Court was not right in setting aside the order, Delay was rightly Further reliance has been placed on (1996) 3 S.C. Cases 132, Stale of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani and others. "Section 5 of the Limitation Act gives power to the Court to admit the appeal or application after the prescribed period. The Supreme Court generally adopts a liberal approach in condonation of delay finding somewhat sufficient caused to decide the appeal on merits. When the State is an applicant, praying for condonation of delay, it is common knowledge that on account of impersonal machinery and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-making, file pushing, and passing on-the- buck ethos, delay on the part of the State is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve, but the State represents collective cause of the community. Decisions are taken by officers/agencies proverbially at slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table and keeping it on table for considerable time causing delay- intentional or otherwise-is a routine. Considerable delay of procedural red-tape in the process of their making decision is a common feature. Therefore, certain amount of latitude is not impermissible. If the appeals brought by the State are lost for such default no person is individually affected but what in the ultimate analysis suffers, is public interest The expression "sufficient cause", should, therefor, be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every days delay. The factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the governmental conditions would be cognizant to and requires adoption of pragmatic approach injustice-oriented process. The Court should decide the matters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. No separate standards to determine the cause laid by the State vis-a-vis private litigant could be laid to prove strick standards of sufficient cause. The Court should decide the matters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. No separate standards to determine the cause laid by the State vis-a-vis private litigant could be laid to prove strick standards of sufficient cause. Litigants including the State are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner." 5. A reference can usefully be made to AIR 1987 S.C. 1353, wherein broad guidelines have been laid down in the matter of considering an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act:- 1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by loading 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 days delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hours delay, every seconds 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. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. Alitigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. 7. On the other hand, reliance has been placed by Shri Sharma on the observations made in (1993) 1 S.C. Cases 572 Binod Bihari Singh Vs. Union of India, which is to the following effect:- "In our view, it is not at all a fit case where in the anxiety to render justice to a party so that a just cause is not defeated, a pragmatic view should be taken by the Court in considering the sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Coming to the contention of Mr. Coming to the contention of Mr. Ranjit Kumar that to defeat a just claim of the appellant, the ignoble plea of bar of limitation sought to be raised by the respondent should not be taken into consideration, we may indicate that it may not be desirable for the government or the public authority to take shelter under the plea of limitation to defeat a just claim of a citizen. But if a claim is barred by limitation and such plea is raised specifically the Court cannot straightway, dismiss the plea simply on the score that such plea is ignoble. A bar of limitation may be considered even if such plea has not been specifically raised. Limitation Act is a statute of repose and bar of a cause of action in a court of law, which is otherwise lawful and valid, because of un-desirable lapse of time asa contained in the Limitation Act, has been made on a well accepted principle of jurisprudence and public policy. That apart, the appellant, in this case, having taken a false stand on the question of receipt of the signed copy of the award to get rid of the bar of limitation should not be encouraged to get any premium on the falsehood on his part by rejecting the plea of limitation raised by the respondent." 8. In the context of present controversy, it is necessary to point out that the courts are required to make justice oriented approach while disposing of such like matters. Further, it has to be taken into account that (as in the present case) when State seeks condonation of delay this has to be kept in view and not like a private party, this factor by itself is not wholly irrelevant. In fact, the experience shows that on account of any impersonal machinery as none who is concerned with the State is going to be directly or indirectly hurt by the, judgment which is intended to be appealed and the official/bureaucratic system imbued with the processing of files and without owning the responsibility, delay on the part of State is not possible to be explained. State, needless to point out, represents the cause of community and does not deserve a litigant non grata status. State, needless to point out, represents the cause of community and does not deserve a litigant non grata status. In these circumstances, courts have to be informed with the spirit and philosophy of the provisions in the course of interpretation of the expression " Sufficient case". So, also the same approach has to be evidenced in its view to do even handed justice on merits in preference to the approach which scuttles the decision of a case on its merits. 9. The matter can be viewed from another aspect also in case some one while dealing with the file wherein proposeral is sent to file and appeal with-holds or does not put up the file before appropriate officer for taking the decision, then in that event because of unfair action and intentional omission on the part of concerned official, the appeal would get time barred and if the submissions made on behalf of the respondent is taken to its logical end then in such an event since the delay is not explained and no sufficient cause can possibly be made in such circumstances, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as time barred. Needless to point out that above enunciated principles by the Honble Apex Court that courts are respected for doing substantial justice between the parties and not throwing out the cases simply on technical pleas/at has been urged by Shri Sharma negatives the same. 10. So for the judgments cited on behalf of respondent in case Binod Bihari Singh Vs. Union of India, (Supra) no benefit can be derived by the respondent from observations made therein. It is not the case of respondent here that the explanation given by the respondent is false or incorrect. The only contention raised on behalf of the respondent is that there is no explanation of delay from 6th April, 1996 to 20th April, 1996, when this appeal was received in the office of learned Advocate General and was filed in the Court and thereafter till the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed on 18th November, 1996. So far the submissions on behalf of respondent that the appeal shall be deemed to have been filed on 18th November, 1996, it has simply been raised to be rejected and it is ordered accordingly. So far the submissions on behalf of respondent that the appeal shall be deemed to have been filed on 18th November, 1996, it has simply been raised to be rejected and it is ordered accordingly. Regarding the delay having not been explained, suffice it to say that if this submission is tested on the touch stone of the principles laid down in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani and others (supra) and Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, Kerela Vs. K. V. Ayisumma, (supra) then it is also required to be rejected. Moreover, from whatever angle submissions made on behalf of the respondent may be viewed, they have no merit and those are rejected accordingly. 11. As a consequence, thereof, the application of condonation of delay is allowed and consequently, it is held that the appeal is within time.