Condonation of delay requires a bona fide explanation; bureaucratic indifference will not justify late filing of an SLP.

Condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act depends on judicial discretion and requires a bona fide, sufficient explanation; it is not available as of right. Even where the applicant is the State, a liberal approach does not excuse lethargy, indifference, or an unacceptable explanation. On the facts, the explanation for the extraordinary delay in filing and refiling the special leave petition was found to be a lame excuse and not a legally sufficient cause, so the Court declined to condone the delay and dismissed the petition as time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extraordinary delay in filing and refiling the special leave petition ought to be condoned on a showing of sufficient cause.

Analysis: Condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is a matter of judicial discretion and cannot be claimed as of right. While a liberal approach may sometimes be adopted where the litigant is the State, the explanation must still disclose a bona fide and acceptable cause. The explanation offered here was found to be merely a lame excuse, reflecting lethargy and indifference rather than a legally sufficient explanation. The Court therefore declined to exercise discretion in favour of condonation.

Conclusion: The delay in filing and refiling the special leave petition was not condoned, and the special leave petition was dismissed as time-barred.

Ratio Decidendi: Condonation of delay requires a bona fide and sufficient explanation, and even a State litigant is not entitled to indulgence where the delay is attributable to indolence or bureaucratic indifference rather than a legally acceptable cause.

---