Limitation and condonation of delay: bureaucratic file movement is no sufficient cause for belated filing by authorities.

Inordinate delay in filing a special leave petition against a bail order was not condoned because the explanation based on internal file movement and repeated document requests was wholly unsatisfactory. The Court reiterated that public authorities are bound by limitation and that bureaucratic processing, file shuttling, or administrative lethargy does not constitute sufficient cause for gross delay. Treating the matter as a certificate case, the Court also imposed deterrent costs to address wastage of judicial time. The special leave petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the inordinate delay in filing the special leave petition against the bail order could be condoned.

Analysis: The explanation for the delay was found wholly unsatisfactory. The delay was attributed to internal movement of files and repeated requests for documents, which did not constitute a sufficient cause. The order reiterated that public authorities are bound by the law of limitation and that administrative lethargy cannot justify belated filings. The matter was also treated as a certificate case, warranting deterrent costs for wastage of judicial time.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the special leave petition was dismissed. Costs were also imposed.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere bureaucratic processing, file shuttling, or internal administrative delay does not amount to sufficient cause for condonation of gross delay in filing proceedings by authorities.

---