Judgment : 1. Mr. R.B. Budihal, Registrar General and Mr. P. Krishna Bhat, Registrar (Judicial) are present before the Court and pray that they need a week’s time to ensure compliance with the directions issued by this Court in terms of paragraph 11 of the order dated 20-09-2010 particularly not only for streamlining the procedure in the Registry, but also to ensure that matters/appeals wherein the applications which are yet to be ordered are first listed for orders and therafter, only when the appeal is ready for admission, to get the appeal listed for admission or for preliminary hearing as the case may be. 2. This appeal by the Joint Commissioner for Transports and the Assistant Regional Transport Officer and Taxation Authority under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 directed against the order dated 30-6-2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, in W.P. No. 6280 of 2008 allowing the writ petition with certain consequential direction etc. There is a delay of 131 days in preferring the appeal and the application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay. The application is supported by an affidavit by one Sri K.T. Halaswamy, Regional Transport Officer, Central, Koramangala. 3. The explanation is that after the orders were passed in the writ petition, an application is made to the Appellate Court due to this procedural aspects for obtaining permission from the Government subsequent to the information of the Law Officer and in the process, there is a delay as the appeal has been preferred by the Government Advocate in the office of the Advocate General. 4. Notice had been issued on this application and also on the application seeking for stay of the order of the learned Single Judge. 5. Respondent has been served and represented by Counsel Sri M.R. Venkatanarasimhachar and objections have been filed to both the applications. 6. We have perused the applications and the affidavits. Objections on behalf of the respondent is that the application for condonation of delay could not be allowed for the reason that the appellants have not explained delay on daily basis and there is considerable gap between the date of grant of Government sanction in filing of the appeal and therefore, application should be dismissed so also the appeal. Objections on behalf of the respondent is that the application for condonation of delay could not be allowed for the reason that the appellants have not explained delay on daily basis and there is considerable gap between the date of grant of Government sanction in filing of the appeal and therefore, application should be dismissed so also the appeal. Another submission of Sri M.R. Venkatanarasimhachar, learned Counsel for the respondent is that the delay is not tenable etc. 7. We have heard Sri T.K. Vedamurthy, learned Government Pleader for the appellants and Sri M.R. Venkatanarimhachar and Sri Srikant on the applications and we have also perused the applications and the affidavits. 8. We find that there is delay of 131 days in preferring this appeal. From the Government’s norms and standards, it cannot be characterized as an inordinate delay as the Government has always been filing the appeals with delays for years together, notwithstanding this Court having hauled them up for such lethargy on the part of the Government. Viewed from that angle, the lethargy appears to have been decreased to same extent but not totally. 9. Be that as it may, in the present case, we find that there is some diligence displayed on the part of the appellants in filing the appeal which is otherwise normally expected of a litigant. 10. In such matters where appeals are by the State and co-ordination at different levels is involved, a little margin has always to be provided and the purpose of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is not much different. Under the circumstances, we are satisfied that the delay in filling the appeal deserves to be condoned in this case but on terms. 11. The delay application in Misc. C. No. 12938 of 2009 is ordered on terms by imposing cost of Rs.1,000/- on the appellants to be aid to the respondent within four weeks’ time. 12. We have also perused the application for stay. The learned Single Judge has issued certain directions enabling the respondent – Writ petitioner to seek for refund and the averment is that the respondent is pressing for refund. 13. The amount had been collected by way of tax and penalty leviable under the provisions of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act for the quarter 1-7-2006 to 30-09-2006. The learned Single Judge has issued certain directions enabling the respondent – Writ petitioner to seek for refund and the averment is that the respondent is pressing for refund. 13. The amount had been collected by way of tax and penalty leviable under the provisions of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act for the quarter 1-7-2006 to 30-09-2006. We have incidentally noticed that the respondent-writ petitioner has filed a second non-user application on 22-3-2007, copy of which is available as Annexure-K appended to the writ petition. 14. In the wake of such non-user application, one possible implication is that the vehicle was on road till then. Though Sri. M.R. Venkatanarasimhachar, learned Counsel for the respondent, seeks to explain that such an application was virtually pressurized to be filed by the respondent, and if this submission can be made good it can be a matter for further examination but at this stage, as there is a prima facie case made out by the appellants, we deem it appropriate to order stay of the portion of the order of the learned Single Judge directing refund of the amount. Accordingly I.A. No. 1 of 2010 is allowed. The writ petition admitted for examination, Sri T.K. Vedamurthy, is directed to place the report of the Commissioner before this Court as to what action they have pursued against the Inspector who according to the Joint Commission has given a false or incorrect report, on the second occasion. Purporting to be as per direction of this Court as per his spot inspection report dated 13-13-2007, which the Commissioner has characterized as an incorrect report. List this matter for final disposal on 5-10-2010.