JUDGMENT 1. Heard on the I.A. filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 2. This is an application made by appellant under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal under Article 225 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 28.5.2008 passed by Single Judge in W.P. No. 2562/2005. 3. The limitation to file an appeal is 60 days as prescribed whereas the delay in filing appeal is 333 days. In other words, the appeal is barred by limitation by 333 days as it is filed against the order dated 28.5.2008 on 21.7.2009. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether any case is made out for condonation of delay in filing appeal. 4. Heard Shri Yashpal Khileree, learned Dy. Government Counsel and Mr. M.S. Panwar, learned counsel for the respondent. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no merit in the application. 6. In the first place, the delay of 333 days, which is more than 10 months is totally unexplained. It is indeed inordinate and thus cannot be condoned for want of sufficient ground as is required to be made out under section 5 of Limitation Act. Secondly, when the Act has given 60 days to file an appeal then there was absolutely no reason as to why the appellant waited for more than 10 months (333 days) for filing an appeal. Thirdly, the appellant is not a rustic villager. Fourthly, the appellant being a State. It is advised by the office of Advocate General on day to day basis and hence it was all the more for the appellant to have filed an appeal within time. Fifthly, the usual ground of administrative sanction that resulted in delay in filing appeal does not appear to us to be real and bona-fide because no department would take more than four months to decide as to whether appeal should be filed or not in such case. It is more so when no details are pleaded in support of such averments. 7. In view of foregoing discussion, we hold that no case is made out on facts for condonation of delay in filing appeal. There is thus no sufficient cause for filing the appeal late by 333 days. The application is thus liable to be dismissed. It is more so when no details are pleaded in support of such averments. 7. In view of foregoing discussion, we hold that no case is made out on facts for condonation of delay in filing appeal. There is thus no sufficient cause for filing the appeal late by 333 days. The application is thus liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly, dismissed. 8. As a consequence, the appeal too is dismissed as being barred by time. Since, the appeal is being dismissed as barred by time and hence, it is not necessary for us to examine the controversy involved in appeal on merits. The appeal, thus fails and is dismissed as barred by time.Appeal and Condonation Application dismissed. *******