ORDER : (Sonia Gokani, J.) 1. Applicant is the original appellant who is aggrieved by the judgement and award dated 21st September 2017 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in L.A.R No. 104 of 2011 to L.A.R. No. 123 of 2011 and L.A.R No. 79 of 2013 to L.A.R. No. 82 of 2013. 2. Delay of 792 days is sought to be condoned explained by the applicant state that after pronouncement of judgment and award dated 21st September, 2017, learned Government Pleader gave his opinion vide letter dated 13th October, 2017 for filing an appeal against the impugned judgment and award. 3. It is further explained that on 2nd January, 2018, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Gandhinagar declared that he should approach the Revenue Department for approval to file an appeal against the impugned judgment and award. 4. On 17th January, 2018, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Gandhinagar returned the proposal to AUDA directing to approach through its Administrative Department to the Revenue Department for approval. 5. AUDA, vide its letter dated 22nd March, 2018, requested the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department to give adequate direction to the Special Land Acquisition Officer for filing an appeal. On 23rd May, 2018, information was given to the District Collector to send a request as per Government Circular dated 26.6.2013. 6. AUDA has again wrote a letter to the District Collector, Gandhinagar on 13.6.2018 to forward its opinion to the Revenue Department as per directions stated in its letter dated 23.5.2018 for filing an appeal. 7. On 26th June, 2013, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Gandhinagar, by letter dated 13th July, 2018, as per the circular dated 26.6.2013 of Legal Department, gave his opinion to file an appeal against the impugned judgment and award. 8. AUDA on 4th August, 2018 informed the Urban Department and Urban Housing Department, Gandhinagar to give its opinion. The Legal Department by its communication dated 11.12.2018 informed the Office of the Government Pleader, High Court of Gujarat regarding its decision to file an appeal against the impugned judgment and award. 9. The Urban Development and Urban Housing Department sent a letter to the Office of the Government Pleader, High Court of Gujarat to undertake necessary action to file an appeal against the impugned judgment and award. 10. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar, vide order dated 19th April, 2019, added six claimants in the original judgment and award. 9. The Urban Development and Urban Housing Department sent a letter to the Office of the Government Pleader, High Court of Gujarat to undertake necessary action to file an appeal against the impugned judgment and award. 10. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar, vide order dated 19th April, 2019, added six claimants in the original judgment and award. Yet, another application was moved for impleading the names of legal heirs in Land Reference Case No. 123 of 2011. Certified copy of the order passed on 19th April, 2019 was received in July, 2019 in Land Reference Case No. 81 of 2013 . 11. According to the applicant, delay is a procedural delay and there is no negligence and/or inaction on the part of any of the department. 12. Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, learned AGP for the applicant-State and Mr. Archit P.Jani, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 and Mr. Parth Patel, learned advocate for the respondent No.1 has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that this is a part of group matters, which has been allowed by the co.ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.2.2021 in Civil Application Nos. 2634 of 2020 in First Appeal No. 5652 of 2020 and allied matters (Coram: Hon’ble Mr.R.M.Chhaya, & Hon’ble Mr. R.P.Dholaria, JJ) as there was no resistance to this delay being condoned, request is made that the Civil Application is allowed. 13. This Court has rendered the order considering delay in the case of Maharaja Sayajirao University Vs. Umeshkumar Chimanlal Pandya passed in Misc. Civil Application (For Restoration) No. 1 of 2021 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 9072 of 2019 in Special Civil Application No. 12919 of 2010 with Civil Application (For Condonation of Delay) No. 2 of 2021, relevant findings and observations are as follows:- “16. We are not delving into the merits of the matter. Presently the issue that arises for our consideration is the condonation of delay. 17. Both the sides have been heard extensively and the decisions which they have relied upon are as follows: 17.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner has relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Rafiq and another vs. Munshilal and another, (1981) 2 SCC 788 and in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Kirshnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123 . 17.2 Learned advocate for the respondent has relied on the decisions of Apex Court in the case of Balwant Singh vs. Jagdish Singh and others decided on 08.07.2010 in Civil Appeal No.1166 of 2006; in the case of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sridevi and others decided on 16.12.2021 in Civil Appeal No.7696 of 2021. 18. The law is quite clear that delay needs to be explained with sufficient cause. The nonexplanation of sufficient cause would not permit the condonation of the same even if such unexplained delay is caused by the Government department or any of the instrumentalities of the Government. The Court has made it abundantly clear that the law of limitation would bind everybody equally including the Government and the difference of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology cannot be accepted, more particularly, with the modern technologies being used and available. What is required to be shown is diligence prosecuting the matter. The Courts have also made it clear that this law of limitations have been founded on public policy. The statutes of limitations are also now as statutes of peace. The unlimited and perpetual threat of limitation would cause imbalance, uncertainty and insecurity and, hence, the public order would require that there should be an end to the litigation. At the same time, the laws of limitation are known for ensuring that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but avail their legal remedies promptly. What is required of the parties is to be vigilant and not indolent. The Courts have, in various decisions, expected every time since matter comes up, to apply the laid down principles with all its figures. It is no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. However, it has to exercise its discretion judicially. Each matter would require a closer look. Acceptability of explanation of delay is a sole criteria. The length always may not be relevant. The Courts have also been emphatically holding that in absence of anything to show mala fide or deliberate delay or as a dilatory tactics, the condoning of delay should be considered by the Court. While so doing the Court needs to also bear in mind the consequential litigation expenses incurred by the party and should compensate the parties accordingly. 19. The Courts have also been emphatically holding that in absence of anything to show mala fide or deliberate delay or as a dilatory tactics, the condoning of delay should be considered by the Court. While so doing the Court needs to also bear in mind the consequential litigation expenses incurred by the party and should compensate the parties accordingly. 19. It is to be seen as to whether this is a matter for the Court to positively exercise the discretion, more particularly, when the delay caused is huge. If one looks at the chronology of events, the order passed by the appellate Court for removal of office objections was on 29.03.2019, where the Court passed the order in Civil Application No. 315 of 2019 and allied matters. The order is reproduced as under:- “Office objections to be removed on or before 22.4.2019, failing which the concerned matter shall stand dismissed for nonprosecution.” 20. Indisputably, Office objections had not been removed and, hence, vide order dated 22.04.2019, the Letters Patent Appeal (Stamp) No. 9072 of 2017 has been dismissed. The application for restoration could have been preferred before 22.05.2019, as the period of 30 days under the laws of limitation is permissible. However, for about 10 months from the expiry of the limitation period for filing the restoration application ,this was not moved. It is not disputed that actually 629 days for filing Miscellaneous Application for restoration had occurred and the lock down was imposed on 24.03.2020. At the same time the Court also needs to keep in mind that it was the learned counsel, who was to intimate the University, if there was any requirement of office objection. No intimation had been given to the University at any point of time. It was the vigilance on the part of the learned advocate concerned, which would have saved the situation. From the decisions of the Apex Court, which had permitted the law of limitation to be extended due to unprecedented period of Covid-19 pandemic, the time, which can be automatically condoned is from 15.03.2020 to 21.02.2021. It was the vigilance on the part of the learned advocate concerned, which would have saved the situation. From the decisions of the Apex Court, which had permitted the law of limitation to be extended due to unprecedented period of Covid-19 pandemic, the time, which can be automatically condoned is from 15.03.2020 to 21.02.2021. It is for the first time in Special Civil Application No.12027 of 2020, which had been preferred for the amount to be deposited pursuant to the directions issued in earlier petition being Special Civil Application No. 12919 of 2010 that the dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal had come to the notice of the applicant original appellant. 21. We also are of the opinion that though the Court is not required to go into the merits, section 24(4) would necessitate seeking of the approval of the State Government so far as determination of the salaries, allowances, emoluments of the employees is concerned and, therefore, that correspondence with the Government can hardly be the reason for this Court to presume abandonment of the cause. We could notice that at every stage the University with rigor followed it up and, therefore, to say that it was an abandoning of the cause from the correspondence or from the deposit of any amount will not be a correct interpretation of the conduct of the University. What has not been approved is the mechanical approach or inherited bureaucratic methodology with a casual approach of not explaining the delay at all. Here, what has weighed with the Court is the explanation of the learned counsel, who now does not appear on regular basis in the High Court and that is the reason why he could not do so. 22. On being satisfied with the explanation that this may not, in any manner, prejudice the right of the University, we allow this application for condonation of delay. While so doing, we would like to impose the cost of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) upon the applicant so as to strike a balance. 23. While parting, we would like to make a reference to the service initiated by the High Court in view of the scenario of Covid pandemic, where the physical access was the major challenge of the learned advocates and litigants to the Court campus. 23. While parting, we would like to make a reference to the service initiated by the High Court in view of the scenario of Covid pandemic, where the physical access was the major challenge of the learned advocates and litigants to the Court campus. A facility has been evolved for the learned advocates and the litigants or any one from the public or organisation like the Government departments, who can get the status of the High Court cases automatically in the email address of their choice after necessary online registration of the request. This facility is to have also the features once the status of the case is registered for an email address and future updates in that particular case would be available as the same has been sent automatically to the parties on the email address. Thus, the cause of access to justice and for ease of getting the Court cases information, this facility has been developed, known as “Email My Case Status”, which is the first of its kind in the entire country. 14. Here also, what can be noticed is that the co.ordinate Bench has already in the appeal arising from the very matter has condoned the delay of these very days as there was no contest by the otherside. 15. If one looks at the explanation, largely it is explained as to how the administrative process has resulted into causing delay. Absence of detail from the time it reached to the office of Government Pleader, is apparent. However, noticing that there is no deliberate delay not any unpardonable negligence. And, as in group matter is other appeals, it is allowed, this is also being allowed with cost. 16. Resultantly, application for condonation of delay is allowed with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only)which AUDA shall bear and deposit within four (4) weeks which shall go to the original claimant. Rule is accordingly made absolute. 17. Let the First Appeal be numbered and placed for final hearing on 11.10.2022.