ORDER : M.R. SHAH, J. 1. Rule. Learned advocate Shri K.B. Pujara appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 9. Shri H.S. Munsha, learned advocate waives service on behalf of respondent no. 11 and Shri U.M. Shastri, learned advocate appears and waives service on behalf of the respondent no. 12. 2. The present Civil Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been preferred by the applicant-State of Gujarat and others requesting to condone delay of 129 days occurred in preferring Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment and order dated 23rd March 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 8714 of 2013. 3. The present Application is opposed by Shri K.B. Pujara, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 9. It is submitted that as such there is no sufficient cause shown and/or delay of 129 days has not been properly explained, and therefore, this Application deserves to be dismissed. 4. On the other hand, learned AGP Shri Dhawan Jayswal appearing on behalf of the applicants-State has pointed out that against the very impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 11477 of 2015 and Special Civil Application No. 641 of 2014, the State of Gujarat has preferred Letters Patent Appeals and there was a delay of 129 days in preferring those LPAs which has been condoned by the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Application No. 9125 of 2016 and Civil Application No. 9126 of 2016. It is submitted that therefore, the present Civil Application deserves to be allowed. 5. Having heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considering the fact that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge passed in SCA No. 11477 of 2015 and SCA No. 641 of 2014 which came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge alongwith the present SCA, the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is at large before the Division Bench of this Court. Under the circumstances, to avoid any conflicting decision; more particularly against the very impugned judgment and order, which is at large before the Division Bench of this Court, we deem it fit to condone the delay by exercising discretion in favour of the applicant, rather than dismissing the Appeal on the ground of limitation. Even otherwise, considering the averments made in the application, it cannot be said that there was any deliberate negligence and/or gross delay in preferring LPA. It appears that on the very ground, the Division Bench has condoned delay in the above referred Civil Applications. 6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, both these Civil Applications succeed. Delay caused in preferring LPA is hereby condoned. 7. Rule nisi made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.