JUDGMENT C.M. No. 16561/2012 (of the appellants for condonation of 88 days delay in preferring the appeal) Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. The senior counsels for the respondents appeared on caveat when the appeal was listed first for admission and sought time to file reply to this application and which was granted. Reply has been filed and the application has been vehemently contested. 2. The intra court appeal impugns the judgment dated 11th June, 2012 of the learned Single Judge granting ad-interim relief to the respondents/writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No.2775/2012 preferred by them. The said writ petition was filed impugning the order dated 7th May, 2012 of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), Government of India, suspending with immediate effect the Non-Scheduled Operator’s Permit issued to the respondents, upon withdrawal by the Ministry of Home Affairs of the security clearance, earlier granted to the respondents. 3. The learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgment has stayed the operation of the order dated 7th May, 2012 of DGCA, subject to certain conditions. 4. The appellants have sought condonation of delay in preferring the appeal on the ground of the time taken by the Ministry of Civil Aviation in obtaining the opinion / consent of the Ministry of Law and Justice for preferring the appeal and in preparation of the appeal. 5. The respondents in their reply to the application have contended that the appellants had vide order dated 7th May, 2012 (supra) suspended the Operator’s Permit of the respondents with immediate effect, without even giving any notice to show cause (one of the reasons which prevailed before the learned Single Judge for granting stay of the order dated 7th May, 2012) and citing grave national urgency and invoking the draconian powers of the State but have not shown equal alacrity in challenging the order of the learned Single Judge whereby the operation of the order dated 7th May, 2012 of the appellants had been stayed. It is further contended that no particulars of the movement of the file or reasons for delay in such movement, have been stated. It is lastly contended that the appellants have concealed that earlier a decision had been taken to comply with the order of the learned Single Judge, as is evident from the letter dated 20th June, 2012 of the DGCA to the petitioner. 6. It is lastly contended that the appellants have concealed that earlier a decision had been taken to comply with the order of the learned Single Judge, as is evident from the letter dated 20th June, 2012 of the DGCA to the petitioner. 6. Elaborate arguments have been addressed by the senior counsels for the respondents including by placing reliance upon Postmaster General v. Living Media India Limited, II (2012) SLT 312=I (2012) CLT 337 (SC)= (2012) 3 SCC 563 , where it was inter alia held that the State/Central Government cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation and delays must not be condoned mechanically and the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities were warned that unless they have reasonable and considerable reasons for the delay and / or are able to prove that there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months. It was yet further held that the government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment and that condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The senior counsels for the respondents have also relied on Pundlik Jalam Patil (dead) by LRs. v. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project, VIII (2008) SLT 575=IV (2008) CLT 138 (SC)= (2008) 17 SCC 448 and Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan, Mumbai, III (2012) SLT 207= (2012) 5 SCC 157 . 7. We have bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the matter, especially in the light of the latest judgment aforesaid of the Apex Court, but for the following reasons we are of the opinion that the delay in the present case needs to be condoned: (i) The order dated 7th May, 2012 of the appellants, operation whereof has been stayed by way of interim order by the learned Single Judge, was predicated on the security clearance of the respondents having been withdrawn. Even though the learned Single Judge has in a detailed judgment running into 54 pages not found any justification for the order dated 7th May, 2012 but it cannot be still lost sight of that the appellants had raised the plea of national security. Even though the learned Single Judge has in a detailed judgment running into 54 pages not found any justification for the order dated 7th May, 2012 but it cannot be still lost sight of that the appellants had raised the plea of national security. Such plea deserves to be given due weightage by the Courts and right of appeal cannot be denied on technicalities as of limitation. Though the officials of the Government inspite of reason of national security having been cited, have by delaying the filing of the appeal thrown the same to the wind but this Court cannot afford to do that. It is a different matter that we, after hearing on merits, may agree with the learned Single Judge and hold only a bogey of a national security having been raised. (ii) It cannot be said that the DGCA had by issuance of the letter dated 20th June, 2012 supra, communicated any decision to accept the order impugned in this appeal. The said letter dated 20th June, 2012 is merely consequential to the order of the learned Single Judge. It appears that the DGCA was anxious to be not accused of contempt of the order of the learned Single Judge. DGCA even otherwise could not take a decision whether to accept the order or not. In fact, the letter dated 20th June, 2012 itself records that the same is in pursuance to the impugned order. (iii) Undoubtedly, the Supreme Court in Living Media India Ltd. (supra) has struck a different note than in a number of earlier judgments where the applications for condonation of delay on the part of the government and governmental agencies have been liberally allowed. However, the said judgment was pronounced only on 24th February, 2012. The Supreme Court itself being conscious of the different note being struck by the said judgment, has in para 29 of the said judgment observed “…it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay…..” delays will not be condoned. It is deemed appropriate to allow the said warning to sink in. (iv) The respondents, by this delay, are not found to have been prejudiced in any manner. 8. We therefore condone the delay in filing the appeal and allow the application. It is deemed appropriate to allow the said warning to sink in. (iv) The respondents, by this delay, are not found to have been prejudiced in any manner. 8. We therefore condone the delay in filing the appeal and allow the application. The learned ASG is however requested to circulate a note along with a copy of the judgment aforesaid of the Supreme Court in Living Media India Limited to all the Ministries and concerned officials therein, informing of the warning sounded by the Supreme Court, so that such delays especially gross delays do not occur in future. The appellants are directed to co-operate with the learned ASG in compliance of the said direction. LPA No.645/2012 List for consideration on 11th March, 2013. Application allowed.