IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.986 of 2009 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division Muzaffarpur. … Respondent/ Appellants. Versus Chandra Bhusan Sharma son of late Mahesh Rai Sharma, resident of village- Pokharia, Rai, Tola Ratanpura, P. S. Chanpatia, District- West- Champaran … Petitioner- Respondent ----------- 3. 03.02.2010 I. A. No. 4786 of 2009 This is an application for condonation of delay of 1 year 133 days. In this application it has been stated that the order passed by learned single Judge was received in the office of deponent on 3.7.2008 and thereafter permission was sought and grounds were prepared. The matter was sent to law department for its opinion and approval of grounds. The file came to the office of Advocate General on 24.04.2009 and vide order dated 25.5.2009 the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna was directed to take steps for filing of appeal. After stating so, it has 2 been pleaded as follows:- “ 7. That the Hon’ble Court was closed for Summer Vacation on 22.5.2009 and opened on 22.6.2009, However vide letter dated 16.6.2009 the R.D.D.E, Muzaffarpur requested to the learned G. P. XI and on 24.6.2009 the Statement of facts for filing appeal was provided to the learned counsel for the State for filing appeal. 8. That lastly memo of appeal become ready and learned counsel verbally intimated to the deponent for swearing oath in the matter on 13.7.2009 and hence the deponent swear oath for filing appeal on 14.7.2009. 9. That it is stated that the from the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove it is apparent that there is no willful latches on the part of the Appellants rather the same was occurred in completing the official formalities and the circumstances the delay, if any occurred in filing the appeal is fit to be condoned.” We have heard Mr. Anil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the State. We are absolutely conscious that in the matter of condonation of delay as far as the State is concerned, latitude is to be shown but the present case, in our considered opinion, does not justify condonation of such enormous delay. 3 Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay stands rejected and as a logical corollary the appeal also stands dismissed. kanchan (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)