ORDER 1. The appeal suffers from delay of 74 days and for condonation thereof an application (I.A. No. 2107/2008) has been made. 2. The explanation has been set out in paragraphs 2 to 18 of the interlocutory application which read thus:- "2. That immediately after the order dated 14.12.2007 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 14075 of 2003 the Office of the Learned G.A.-10 sent a letter dated 14.12.07 to the department informing them that the writ application has been allowed quashing the order of the termination with a direction to pay all back wages within three months. 3. That on 18.12.2007 the Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation deputed one of clerk namely Umashankar Prasad for the purpose of obtaining the certified copy of the order. 4. That till 28.12.2007, the certified copy of the order dated 14.12.07 was not available in the department hence it was proposed that unless and until the order is available no further action is required to be taken by the department. 5. That on 4.1.08, the Clerk of the learned G.A.-10 filed the Chirkuit for obtaining a certified copy of the order. 6. That on 16.1.08, the certified copy was obtained which was made available to the department. 7. That, thereafter on 18.1.08 it was proposed by the department to take steps for filing the L.P.A. against the order dated 14.12.07 and for the said purpose, it was ordered to endorse the file to the Law Department. 8. That the Secretary, Water Resources Department and Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation after explaining the reasons for moving for filing an L.P.A. on the file ordered to endorse the file to sent it to the Law Department. 9. That on 25.1.08, the file was received by the Law Department for seeking opinion whether L.P.A. can be filed in the matter. 10. That on 18.2.07, the opinion was given by the learned G.A.-10 Mrs. Nilu Agrawal for filing an L.P.A. against the order dated 14.12.2007 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 14075/03. 11. That on 18.2.2008, the file was returned to the Law Department after its approval from the learned A.G. 12. That the file was received in the Law Department on 22.2.08 after legal opinion which was subsequently sent to the Water Resources Department the same day. 13. 11. That on 18.2.2008, the file was returned to the Law Department after its approval from the learned A.G. 12. That the file was received in the Law Department on 22.2.08 after legal opinion which was subsequently sent to the Water Resources Department the same day. 13. That the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Muzaffarpur was called by the Department on 25.2.08 for preparing a statement of facts for the said purpose. 14. That on 29.2.2008, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Muzaffarpur addressed to the Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation asked for inclusion of the point no. 2 of opinion of learned A.G. in the statement of facts. 15. That on 3.3.08, the statement of facts prepared by Special Land Acquisition Officer, Muzaffarpur was kept on record after getting it typed for approval of the Secretary of the Department. 16. That in the light of the opinion of learned A.G., the file was placed on 6.3.08 before Principal Secretary, Water Resources Deptt. and also it was stated that on behalf of the department the Rehabilitation Officer, Koshi Project may be authorized to swear in the matter. It was also proposed to make available the file to the learned A.G. through the Law Department. The Principal Secretary of the Department and the Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation ordered and directed to sent the file to the learned A.G. for filing an L.P.A. in the matter. 17. That on 12.3.08 the file was received by the Law Department which was thereafter sent to the learned AG. on the same day. 18. That on 18.3.2008 the file was received by the Assistant of the Learned AG. Office and the learned A.G. putting the signature on it on 19.3.2008 for directing filing LPA in the matter." 3. The respondents seek to contest this interlocutory application seeking condonation of delay and a written response has been filed. The counsel also relies upon a decision of this court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna through its Chairman and Others Vs. Baxi S.R.P. Sinha, Advocate, reported in 1999(1) PLJR 60, in support of his submission that movement of file from one section to the other section or one department to the other department does not constitute sufficient cause. 4. In so far as written response by the respondents is concerned, it does not controvert the specific facts set out in the application at all. 4. In so far as written response by the respondents is concerned, it does not controvert the specific facts set out in the application at all. As a matter of fact, the explanation that has been given by the appellants in the application for condonation of delay has not at all been controverted or traversed, except a vague general denial. 5. It needs no elaboration that as to whether the delay is sufficiently explained or not depends upon the cause shown by the applicant and sufficiency thereof. Each case, therefore, obviously, has to be decided on its own facts. However, where the applicant is not an individual, but a State and where decision making process involves multiple levels, obviously if sometime is taken in that regard, that cannot be said to be not sufficient justifying condonation of delay. 6. If any authority in this connection is needed, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, reported in AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1353, is on the point, wherein the Supreme Court laid down the principles governing consideration of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act thus:- "1. Ordinarily a litigant, does not stand to benefit by lodging 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 day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's 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. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant 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. Making a justice-oriented approach from this perspective, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of the appeal. The fact that it was the 'State' which was seeking condonation and not a private party was altogether irrelevant. The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants, including the State as a litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an evenhanded manner." 7. Having considered the facts of the case in the light of the settled principles governing Section 5 of the Limitation Act, we are satisfied that the delay of 74 days is sufficiently explained by the appellants. 8. We accordingly condone the delay in filing the appeal. 9. I.A. No. 2107 of 2008 stands disposed of. 10. Let LPA be posted for admission on 24th of July, 2008.