IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 837 OF 2007 IN STAMP NUMBER (APPLN.) NO. 2536 OF 2007 KUNDANKUMAR A. SHETYE, BICHOLIM GOA. ... Applicant Versus THE GOA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Ryan Menezes, Advocate for the Applicant. Coram:- R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. Date:- 11th February, 2008 P.C.:- Heard. This is an application for condonation of delay of 366 days in filing L.P.A. The order which is sought to be impugned in Writ Petition was passed in 2006. The present application was filed on 19-9-2007. It is the case of the Applicant that during this period of 366 days he wanted to file a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court and therefore sought advice from an Advocate in Delhi who advised him to file Review Application. The same was filed on 17-10-2006 after condoning the delay. The Review Application was dismissed on 19-4-2007. Thereafter the L.P.A. was sought to be filed. Apart from stating these facts, no other facts have been disclosed for condonation of delay of 366 days. There are no details about the period spent in obtaining the required certified copy as also the period spent in seeking necessary advice for filing the Review Petition and further the period spent in seeking advice for filing L.P.A. instead of Special Leave Petition. Apparently, therefore, there is no cause for delay described in the manner it is necessary to explain under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Apart from the fact that there is no sufficient cause shown for condonation of delay of 366 days in filing the L.P.A. on perusal of the order dated 16-8-2006 read with copy of the petition which was filed and disposed of by the said order in the Writ Petition, the Petitioner has actually sought for relief in the nature of mandamus a direction to the Respondents to extend such scheme to the Petitioner. It is settled law that in cases of the scheme in respect of which direction is sought to be obtained are in the nature of policy matters and therefore the question of granting mandamus for the same does not arise. Therefore even on merits there does not appear to be any case for consideration. In the circumstances in the absence of sufficient cause being disclosed for delay of 366 days in filing L.P.A, the application is dismissed. R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.