RSA 2396 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2396 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.11. 2008 State of Haryana and others ...... Appellants Versus Shodan and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Deepak Jindal, Addl. A.G. Haryana for the appellants. Mr. Vipul Aggarwal, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. **** Ajay Tewari, J.(Oral) This appeal has been filed by the State of Haryana against the order of the lower Appellate Court rejecting the application of condonation of delay of 27 days in filing the appeal and consequently dismissing the same. This delay was alleged to have been caused because there was a difference of opinion regarding the maintainability of filing appeal. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that each day's delay had to be explained and the cryptic explanation offered by the appellants does not entitle them for condonation of delay. In my opinion this delay of 27 days cannot be said to have been RSA 2396 of 2007 2 so unreasonable as to disentitle the appellants from having their cause decided on merits. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and others, reported as (1996)3 Supreme Court Cases 132 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- “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. Decisions are taken by officers/agencies proverbially at slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to take and keeping it on table for consideration 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.” I find that the judgment is clearly applicable to the facts of this case. In the circumstances this appeal is allowed and judgment and decree dated 12.5.2007 is set aside. Consequently the Civil Appeal No.07 of 08.02.2007 filed before the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon stands revived. Parties through their counsel are directed to appeal before the Court of Sh. Sanjiv Kumar, Additional District Judge (or successor Court), Gurgaon on 15.12.2008 AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE November 03, 2008 sunita