1. This application has been submitted under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, praying for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the judgment dated: 31-07-2001 passed by Additional District Judge, Srinagar. 2. The record reveals that the respondent was allotted work for construction of drain including main-holes for Ghana Mohalla drainage Scheme from RD-0 to 500 vide tender notice No. 17/SED/Sgr. dated: 8th of May, 1990. The respondent seems to have started construction of the drainage and during the course of execution of the work the alignment was change by the appellants. It seems that there was cost escalation on account of execution of extra construction work and for dewatering of the drainage. The respondent, however, continued and complete the work. 3. The respondent approached appellants for release of the payment which does not seem to have been made despite passing of the bill and as such suit for recovery of the amount of Rs. 8,53,791/- was filed in this Court. On the basis of the application filed by the respondent the controversy was referred and settled in Arbitration proceeding and award of Rs. 5,17,500/- was passed in faovur of the respondent. The award was made rule of the court vide order dated: 31-07-2001. The appellants preferred appeal against the order dated: 31-07-2001, which being time barred by 127 days, is prayed to be admitted by condoning the delay in the present CMP. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The main submission made by the appellants to condone the delay is that law Department took considerable time to grant sanction for filing the appeal and then Finance Department also took time to sanction Rs. 15,000/-for court fee of the appeal. On these two grounds, the appellants pray for condonation of delay. 5. Admittedly, the Apex Court has held that while considering the prayer by State for condonation of delay, the aspect that the State represents the interest of the entire society and the delay caused by the State should not be weighed on the same criteria as the delay caused by an individual representing his personal interest. In the present case, the appellants have not explained with specific details of date and time, taken by the Law Department and the Finance Department, to complete the formalities. In the present case, the appellants have not explained with specific details of date and time, taken by the Law Department and the Finance Department, to complete the formalities. The Apex Court in 2001 JT 265 has held that the delay has to be explained not for the permissible period to file appeal, but for the period, from where limitation starts to run against the appellant. The impugned order has been passed on 31-07-2001. The period of limitation would start running from 30-10-2001. The appellants had to explain the delay starting from 30-10-2001 till the date of filing of the appeal, i.e. 07-03-2002. The delay of this period form 30-10-2001 to 07-03-2002 has not been explained with specific details as to how much time was taken by Law Department and then by the Finance Department to complete the formalities of filing of the appeal. In the absence of acceptable explanation, and cogent reasons to explain the delay for the specific period of limitation the petition cannot be permitted. For the reasons given above, as the period of condonation has not been explained within the mandates of the directions of the Apex Court, the application does not warrant to be permitted, which is accordingly, dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.