Judgment V.K.Bali, J. 1. MMTC Ltd., the petitioner herein, which is a Government of India enterprise, through present petition filed by it under article 226 of the Constitution of India, calls in question order, annexure P 5, dated April 10, 2000 passed by Joint Excise & Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) vide which, the appeal filed by the petitioner against order, annexure P 1, dated July 30, 1999 pertaining to assessment was dismissed being time barred as application filed Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of two months seven days in filing the appeal was not condoned as also order, annexure P 10, dated December 3, 2001 passed by the learned Sales Tax Tribunal, the third respondent herein vide which, the second appeal filed against the order, annexure P 5, was dismissed. 2. We have heard learned counsel representing the parties and examined the records of the case. 3. Delay of two months and seven days in filing the appeal was sought to be condoned by, inter-alia, pleading that Jasvinder Singh, assistant dealing with this matter met with a serious accident causing bruises and complicated leg fracture which necessitated him to remain on leave from October 1, 1999 to January 21, 2000. Smt. Harjeet Kaur, Junior Office Manager, who was also concerned with the case, had to remain on leave from October 25, 1999 to March 22, 2000 due to illness and unavoidable health reasons. It was then pleaded that no substitute was provided against the above incumbents and the staff posted at MMTC Faridabad was already short. One Shri Narender Malik, Deputy Manager (F&A), who directly deals with the case, jointed MMTC, Faridabad, on July 23, 1999 and Shir Sundeep Kumar, Senior Manager, MMTC, Faridabad also jointed on August 25, 1999. Both these officers were new to their job. There was sufficient work and these officers had different types of onerous problems and responsibilities facing the organisation. 4. The facts aforesaid remained unrebutted and yet delay in filing the appeal was not condoned primarily on the ground that the petitioner was big organisation and it could somehow manage to file the appeal in time. 5. We are of the considered view that delay of two months and seven days in filing the appeal, in the circumstances as mentioned in the affidavit seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, ought to have been condoned. 5. We are of the considered view that delay of two months and seven days in filing the appeal, in the circumstances as mentioned in the affidavit seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, ought to have been condoned. It is too well-settled by now and reference in this connection be made to the observations made in the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani AIR 1996 SC 1623 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. 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 in justice-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 strict standards of sufficient cause." Otherwise also, it is too well-settled that unless there is intention to delay the matter, be it the original Us or an appeal, delay should normally be condoned. 6. In totality of facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the concerned authority should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal. That being the position, we set aside impugned orders, annexures P 5 and P 10, and remit the case to the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Faridabad, the second respondent herein, to determine the controversy on merits. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the second respondent on September 22, 2003. 7. Inasmuch as sufficient time has elapsed, we direct respondent No. 2 to deal with the appeal of the petitioner and dispose of the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and preferably within two months from the date, parties through their counsel appear before him. 8. Disposed of accordingly.