JASBIR SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS application has been filed with a prayer to condone delay of 514 days in filing LPA No.633 of 2014. To condone delay, following explanation has been submitted: - "1. That the copy of the impugned order dated 3.10.2012, against which the present LPA is being filed, was received in the office of Director School Education, Haryana, Panchkula on 25.10.2012. 2. That thereafter the matter was submitted for orders of competent authority and competent authority has decided to file LPA in this matter as such necessary sanction was given to LR Haryana to issue necessary instruction to AG Haryana to file LPA vide letter dated 2.9.2013. Thereafter, LR Haryana issued necessary instruction to AG Haryana to file 3. That the matter remained under consideration of Audit Cell, Legal Cell and field offices and finally Principal Secretary Secondary Education to Govt. Harayna, vide order dated 12.2.2014 decided to file LPA against the order dated 3.10.2012."
(2.) IT is only stated that appeal could not be filed in time as the time was consumed in taking administrative approval to file the same. As per facts on record, judgment under challenge was passed on 3.10.2012. Certified copy of the same was received in the office of Director School Education, Haryana on 25.10.2012 i.e. within a period of 22 days. Thereafter it is only submitted that the competent authority then took decision to file an appeal. Matter was sent to the Legal Remembrancer Haryana for necessary sanction. Sanction was granted by the Legal Remembrancer Haryana vide letter dated 2.9.2013 and thereafter another letter was sent by the Legal Remembrancer Haryana on 24.9.2013. For a period of about one year, no explanation has been given. Why delay was caused, who was dealing with the file, how much time was taken by the competent authority and then by the office of Legal Remembrancer to clear the file, nothing is stated in this application. Not only as above, it is further stated that matter remained under consideration of the Audit Cell, Legal Cell and field offices and finally Principal Secretary Secondary Education vide order dated 12.2.2014 decided to file appeal against order dated 3.10.2012. It is very surprising that once decision was taken by the competent authority, affirmed by the Legal Remembrancer and directions were issued to the Advocate General's office to file appeal on 24.9.2013, why it was further delayed. There is nothing on record to indicate as to why the matter was sent to the Audit Cell, Legal Cell and field offices thereafter and under what circumstances, Principal Secretary took about five months to clear that file. Nothing is stated in this application. Application has been filed in a very casual manner without giving any further explanation for each days delay. As to how it was caused and what were the reasons for the same nothing is mentioned. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has set down parameters to condone delay in the case of Maniben Devraj Shah vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, (2012) 5 Supreme Court Cases 157. After considering large number of precedents, it was held as under: - "23. What needs to be emphasised is that even though a liberal and justice oriented approach is required to be adopted in the exercise of power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and other similar statutes, the Courts can neither become oblivious of the fact that the successful litigant has acquired certain rights on the basis of the judgment under challenge and a lot of time is consumed at various stages of litigation apart from the cost. 24. What colour the expression sufficient cause' would get in the factual matrix of a given case would largely depend on bona fide nature of the explanation. If the Court finds that there has been no negligence on the part of the applicant and the cause shown for the delay does not lack bona fides, then it may condone the delay. If, on the other hand, the explanation given by the applicant is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay. 25. In cases involving the State and its agencies/instrumentalities, the Court can take note of the fact that sufficient time is taken in the decision making process but no premium can be given for total lethargy or utter negligence on the part of the officers of the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities and the applications filed by them for condonation of delay cannot be allowed as a matter of course by accepting the plea that dismissal of the matter on the ground of bar of limitation will cause injury to the public interest."
(3.) IN another case, it was opined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that same yard -sticks be applied for deciding the applications for condonation of delay, filed by the private individuals and the State. In Amalendu Kumar Bera and others vs. State of West Bengal, (2013) 4 Supreme Court Cases 52, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: - "... ... ... There is no dispute that the expression 'sufficient cause' should be considered with pragmatism in justice oriented approach rather than the technical detection of 'sufficient cause' for the explaining every days' delay. However, it is equally well settled that the Courts albeit liberally considered the prayer for condonation of delay but in some cases the Court may refuse to condone the delay in as much as the Government is not accepted to keep watch whether the contesting respondent further put the matter in motion. The delay in official business requires its pedantic approach from public justice perspective. In a recent decision in the case of Union of India v. Nirpen Sharma, 2011(5) R.C.R.(Civil) 187 : AIR 2011 SC 1237 the matter came up against the order passed by the High Court condoning the delay in filing the appeal by the appellant -Union of India. The High Court refused to condone the delay on the ground that the appellant -Union of India took their own sweet time to reach the conclusion whether the judgment should be appealed or not. The High Court also expressed its anguish and distress, the way the State conduct the cases regularly in filing the appeal after the same became operational and barred by limitation. " ;