Honble SHETHNA, J.–The petitioner -State of Rajasthan has challenged in this petition the impugned judgment and order dated 5.10.96 (Annex.2) passed by the Board of Revenue dismissing its revision only on the ground of delay in filing the same late without going into the merits of the case. (2). Learned counsel Mr. Maheshwari appearing for the private respondents submitted that this Court dismissed identical writ petition no.318/98 on 3.2.99 and relying upon the same judgment, identical group of petitions no. 730/98 and allied matters were also dismissed by this Court on 15.2.99. He submitted that this is also an identical matter, therefore, this petition be straightway dismissed in terms of the aforesaid judgment. (3). However, Mr. R.K. Soni, Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the petitioner -State of Rajasthan submits that in the aforesaid two judgments, two judgments of Honble Supreme Court and one judgment of Single Bench of this Court were not considered. He submitted that if they were considered then this Court would not have taken that view. In support of his submission, he has relied upon two Supreme Court judgments in the case of State of Haryana vs. Chandra Mani & Ors. (1) and in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs. Harish Chandra & Ors. (2). (4). In the first case of Chandra Mani (supra), what were the facts of the case were not stated in the judgment. It appears from the judgment that there was delay of 109 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. What were the reasons for condoning the delay have also not been stated in the judgment. It is only stated by Honble Supreme Court in the judgment that, ``We have perused the reasons given for the delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. Considering the judgments of Privy Council as well as its several judgments, in Chandra Mania case (supra), the Apex Court held in that case, ``considered from the perspective, it must be held that the delay of 109 days in this case has been explained and that it is a fit case for condonation of the delay. Considering the judgments of Privy Council as well as its several judgments, in Chandra Mania case (supra), the Apex Court held in that case, ``considered from the perspective, it must be held that the delay of 109 days in this case has been explained and that it is a fit case for condonation of the delay. The Honble Supreme Court has also observed in para 10 of its judgment in Chandra Manis case that, ``It is notorious and common knowledge that delay in more than 60 per cent of the cases filed in this Court -be it private party or the State -are barred by limitation and this Court generally adopts, liberal approach in condonation of delay finding somewhat sufficient cause to decide the appeal on merits. The Honble Supreme Court further observed that, ``When the State is an applicant, praying for condonation of delay, it is common knowledge that on account of impersonal machinery and the inherited bureaucra-tic 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. It is axiomatic that decisions are taken by officer/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, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every days delay. (5). In Harish Chandras case, there was a delay of 480 days in preferring S.L.P. before the Supreme Court. In that case, the respondents (in S.L.P.) themselves ap-proached the High Court in the year 1990 making a grievance that they have not been appointed even though they were included in the select list of 1987 and 1987 list itself expired under the Rule on 4.4.98. In that case, the respondents (in S.L.P.) themselves ap-proached the High Court in the year 1990 making a grievance that they have not been appointed even though they were included in the select list of 1987 and 1987 list itself expired under the Rule on 4.4.98. Thus, there was a delay on the part of the respondent-original petitioners before the High Court in approaching the High Court after two or three years. Therefore, the Honble Supreme Court overruled the objections regarding the delay. However, in para 7 of the judgment in Harish Chandras case (supra), the Honble Supreme Court clearly stated that, ``It is undoubtedly true that the applicant seeking for condonation of delay is duty bound to explain the reasons for the delay but as has been held by this Court in several cases, the very manner in which the bureaucratic process moves,if the case deserves merit the Court should consider the question of condonation from that perspective. (6). In the case of Urban Improvement Trust vs. Poonam Chand (3), the learned Single Judge of this Court condoned the delay while observed that, ``After getting information about the judgment and decree dated 12.9.94, the defendant-appellants applied for certified copies of judgment and decree of the learned trial Court with promptitude and filed the appeal along with application under Sec. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act supported with an affidavit on 5.5.95. (7). On merits, learned counsel Mr. Soni submitted that the value of each pro-perty was nearly Rs.5 lakhs instead of that in the documents, the value is put only Rs. 1 lakh which is very less. This way, the State is put to a great loss. He submitted that the learned Collector was wholly wrong in rejecting the reference submitted before him. He submitted that under the circumstances, the Board of Revenue ought to have condoned the delay which is hardly six months in this case and then it should have decided the revision on merits. (8). As against this, learned counsel Mr. Maheshwari appearing for the private respondents submitted that when this Court dismissed the identical writ petitions by the aforesaid judgments dated 3.2.99 and 15.2.99 respectively, then this petition should also be dismissed only on the ground of limitation without going into the merits of the case. In addition to the Supreme Court judgments relied upon by this Court in the aforesaid two judgments, Mr. In addition to the Supreme Court judgments relied upon by this Court in the aforesaid two judgments, Mr. Maheshwari has also relied upon the latest judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Ramchandran vs. State of Kerala (4). In that case, there was a delay of about 565 days and the reason given for condonation of delay was, ``at that time the Advocate Generals office was fed up with so many arbitration matters equally important to this case were pending consideration. The Honble Supreme Court observed that it can hardly be said to be a reasonable, satisfactory or even a proper explanation, therefore, the petition was dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court by observing that, Law of Limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribe and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. (9). It may be stated that in that case, there was an inordinate delay of 565 days which was condoned by the High Court by accepting the explanation offered by the State of Kerala before it that at that time the Advocate Generals office was fed up by arbitrary matters pending consideration. It was challenged before the Honble Supreme Court and it was held that the Court have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds and the High Courts judgment was set aside. (10). In this case, the learned Collector (Stamps), Bikaner after hearing the parties rejected the reference by his order dated 14.12.94 (Annex.1). The period of limitation was 90 days in filing the revision petition before the Board of Revenue which expired somewhere on14.3.95. From the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it is clear that the certified copy of the impugned order dated 14.12.94 was applied for the first time on 28.9.95 after the officer incharge was app-ointed in the matter on 11.9.95 i.e. much after the period of six months of even filing the revision petition. It is true that the State is not required to explain every days delay but there was no explanation much less sufficient explanation from the State Government for a period of atleast six months even after the expiry of the period of limitation which expired in March, 1995. It is true that the State is not required to explain every days delay but there was no explanation much less sufficient explanation from the State Government for a period of atleast six months even after the expiry of the period of limitation which expired in March, 1995. Each case has to be decided on its own facts and rightly held by Honble Supreme Court in its latest decision in Ram Chandrans case (supra) that the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. (11). It is also true that in Chandramanis case (supra), the Honble Supreme Court observed that, ``It is notorious and common knowledge that delay in more than 60 per cent of the cases filed in this Court be it by private party or the State — are barred by limitation and this Court generally adopts liberal approach in condonation of delay finding somewhat sufficient cause to decide the appeal on merits. It is also true that the expression ``sufficient cause should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every days delay. However, one can go by a general practice or a liberal approach in condonation of delay when no cause much less sufficient cause is shown in condoning the delay. (12). This is a case, like other cases, which have been dismissed by this Court, in which the State Government allowed the period of limitation to expire and did not even bother to apply for the certified copy within the period of limitation i.e. within 90 days from the date of passing the order by the Collector on 14.12.94. All of sudden it woke up on 11.9.95 when for the first time it appointed officer-incharge to look into the matter and the certified copy was applied after 17 days thereof and on 28.9.95, the certified copy of the judgment and order passed by the Collector was applied and received and thereafter only the revision petition was filed. All of sudden it woke up on 11.9.95 when for the first time it appointed officer-incharge to look into the matter and the certified copy was applied after 17 days thereof and on 28.9.95, the certified copy of the judgment and order passed by the Collector was applied and received and thereafter only the revision petition was filed. Under the circumstances, the only legitimate inference which can be drawn by the Court is that initially the Government accepted the order passed by the Collector and, therefore, only not applied for the certified copy that it seems that later on because of some or the other reasons, it changed its mind and then decided to challenge the order of the Collector before the Board of Revenue in revision. (13). In case of Ajit Singh Thakur Singh & Anr. vs. State of Gujrat (5), the Honble Supreme Court refused to condone the delay in such type of circumstances where the State Government was initially not interested in filing the matter and did not apply for the certified copy of the order and allowed the period of limitation to expire. (14). This petition is labelled as a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but strictly speaking this is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the scope of which is narrow and limited as explained by the Honble Supreme Court in its several decisions. This Court cannot interfere even if any error of law is committed by the Subordinate Court as held by Honble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Yunus vs. Mohd. Mustaqim & Ors. (6). (15). Going through the order passed by the Board of Revenue and the reasons assigned in it, it is clear that the Board of Revenue has not committed any error in dismissing the revision petition filed by the State of Rajasthan only on the ground of limitation without going into the merits of the case. In that view of the matter, this Court would not like to interfere with such order in its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. (16). On merits also, the petitioner has no case because the learned Collector while rejecting the reference has given solid and cogent reasons in its order. It is an undisputed fact that the shops in question which were sold were let out since years at the monthly rent of only Rs. 300/-per month. (16). On merits also, the petitioner has no case because the learned Collector while rejecting the reference has given solid and cogent reasons in its order. It is an undisputed fact that the shops in question which were sold were let out since years at the monthly rent of only Rs. 300/-per month. Under the circumstances, even if its market value may be much more, then also it is known fact that no one would purchase such shop with an old sitting tenant. Under the circumstances on merits also, the petitioner has no case. (17). The submission of Mr. Soni was that by not condoning the delay and not deciding the revision on merits, the State Government was put to a great financial loss which was not proper. If according to the State it is put to a great loss then it was the duty of the State Government itself to find out who was the person at fault in not bringing the fact of passing the order by the Collector immediately to the authority for carrying the matter further by way of revision before the Board of Revenue. It appears that the State Government is not at all sincere to find out the person and fasten his liability. This is not only the case, several cases of the similar nature have been dismissed by the Board of Revenue as well as by this Court but so far the State Government has not bothered to find out the person who is responsible for this and not bothered to take action against such persons. It will not be even too late to take appropriate departmental proceedings against the concerned person and if such officer is retired, then the loss, if any, caused to the Government can be recovered either from his salary or pension. But, for its gross negligence, the State cannot ask the Court to entertain the petition and decide the same on merits when it is hopelessly time barred for which no explanation much less sufficient or proper explanation is offered. (18). In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.