CM No.2943-C of 2011 [1] CM No.9040-C of 2011 in/and RSA No.1049 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.2943-C of 2011 CM No.9040-C of 2011 in/and RSA No.1049 of 2011 Date of Decision: 9.08.2011 The State of Haryana and others ..... Appellants Versus M/s HMT Limited Pinjore and another ..... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, DAG, Haryana, for the applicant- appellant. Mr. D.K. Goyal, Advocate, for Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Brijeshwar Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.2. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.(Oral) CM No.9040-C of 2011 Reply to the application for condonation of delay filed along with the present application is taken on record. C.M. is disposed of. CM No.2943-C of 2011 This application has been filed for condonation of delay of 50 days in filing the appeal. Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Mahaboob and Anr., 2009(2) RCR (Civil) 702 and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaan, 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 119 to say that in the matter of condonation of delay some amount of latitute ought to CM No.2943-C of 2011 [2] CM No.9040-C of 2011 in/and RSA No.1049 of 2011 be granted to the State. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 50 days in filing the appeal is condoned. RSA No.1049 of 2011 The present regular second appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 7.10.2010 rendered by District Judge, Panchkula who has declined to condone the delay of 296 days in filing the appeal by the State of Haryana against M/s HMT Ltd. Pinjore which is also a company held by Government of India and dismissed the application and in consequence thereof did not entertain the appeal. Ms.Tanisha Peshawaria, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana has placed reliance upon State (NCT of Delhi) ( supra) to contend that due to non condonation of delay, it is a public interest which has suffered. She has submitted that there was a delay in receiving instructions from the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana, Chandigarh. It is contended that the proposal/opinion for filing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23.7.2008 was sent to Legal Remembrancer, Haryana on 8.8.2008. The Legal Remembrancer, Haryana agreed with the proposal/opinion of the District Attorney, Panchkula and then approval for filing the appeal was received on 20.8.2009. Thereafter, Tehsildar, Kalka was contacted and later on the instructions of Collector, Panchkula, the appeal was filed on 9.6.2009. Recently, Hon'ble Apex Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another, 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 284, had noticed the entire case law and had laid the parameters whereby delay in filing of the appeal by the State can be CM No.2943-C of 2011 [3] CM No.9040-C of 2011 in/and RSA No.1049 of 2011 condoned or not and in para 8 held as under:- "8. We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time. The expression "sufficient cause" employed in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice. Although, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate - Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107, N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, 1999(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 578 : (1998) 7 SCC 123 and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil, 2001(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 831 : (2001) 9 SCC 106. In dealing with the applications for condonation of delay filed on behalf of the State and its agencies/instrumentalities this Court has, while emphasizing that same yardstick should be applied for deciding the applications for condonation of delay filed by private individuals and the State, observed that certain amount of latitude is not impermissible in the latter case because the State represents collective cause of the community and the decisions are taken by the officers/agencies at a slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table consumes considerable time causing delay - G. Ramegowda v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, CM No.2943-C of 2011 [4] CM No.9040-C of 2011 in/and RSA No.1049 of 2011 1988(1) R.R.R. 555 : (1988) 2 SCC 142, State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani, 1996(2) R.R.R. 82 : (1996) 3 SCC 132, State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra, 1996(2) S.C.T. 712 : (1996) 9 SCC 309, State of Bihar v. Ratan Lal Sahu (1996) 10 SCC 635, State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao, 2005(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 414 : 2005(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 375 : 2005(2) Apex Criminal 75 : (2005) 3 SCC 752, and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaan, 2008(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 119 : 2008(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 126 : 2008(4) S.C.T. 25 : 2008(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 234 : 2008(5) R.A.J. 214 : (2008) 14 SCC 582." After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the appeal ought to have been decided on merits. Therefore, the present appeal is accepted and the impugned judgment and decree passed by lower Appellate Court on 07.10.2010 are set aside. Application for condonation of delay is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the District Judge, Panchkula, to decide the appeal afresh on merits. Parties are directed to appear before the lower Appellate Court on 05.09.2011. The lower Appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal on merits as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) 09.08.2011 JUDGE manju/RC