- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant.
(2.) IN view of the judgment dated 03.07.2010 passed by this Court in Second Appeal (Defective) No. 250 of 2010: State of U.P. through Collector, Azamgarh Vs. Keshav Murari Rai, regarding delay in filing appeal and also in view of the observations made in paragraph 11 in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani and others reported in : (1996) 3 SCC 132, the Court is of the view that sufficient cause of delay should be considered with pragmatism in justice -oriented manner. Certain amount of latitude within reasonable limits is permissible having regard to impersonal bureaucratic set -up involving red -tapism. Officer concerned should be made personally responsible for the delay in filing the appeal. State cannot be put on the same footing as an individual. Paragraph 11 of the judgment (supra) reads thus: litigants including the State are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even -handed manner. When the State is an applicant, praying for condonation of delay, it is common knowledge that on account of impersonal machinery and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note -making, file -pushing, and passing -on -the -buck ethos, delay on the part of the State is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve, but the State represents collective cause of the community. It is axiomatic that decisions are taken by officers/agencies proverbially at slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table and keeping it on table for considerable time causing delay - intentional or otherwise - is a routine. Considerable delay of procedural red -tape in the process of their making decision is a common feature. Therefore, certain amount of latitude is not impermissible. If the appeals brought by the State are lost for such default no person is individually affected but what in the ultimate analysis suffers, is public interest. The expression "sufficient cause" should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice -oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day's delay. The factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the governmental conditions would be cognizant to and requires adoption of pragmatic approach in justice -oriented process. The court should decide the matters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. No separate standards to determine the cause laid by the State vis -a -vis private litigant could be laid to prove strict standards of sufficient cause. For the reasons stated above, We are not inclined to condone the delay in filing special appeal which has been filed with the delay of two years and 35 days. The delay condonation application is, accordingly, rejected. Since the delay condonation application in filing appeal is rejected, special appeal also stands dismissed.;