TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (12) TMI 804
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....correspondence (Annexure A/3 to Annexure A/7) to justify the delay occasioned in filing the accompanying appeal. 2. Without commenting upon the veracity of the aforesaid correspondence, as the same would be subject matter of the consideration in the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, certified copy of the impugned judgment (Annexure A-1/2) as well as Copy of correspondence (Annexure A-3 to Annexure A-7) filed along with this application is taken on record. 3. Application stands disposed of. C.M. No. 11018/2010 (under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 479 days) & LA. App. No. 655/2010 4. The delay in filing the accompanying appeal is of 479 days which was occasioned due to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ram Kishan, was relied upon, to assert that mere reliance on inter-department correspondence cannot be the basis of condoning the inordinate delay as the time taken for such deliberations must be sensible and reasonable. At the hearing, it was emphasized on behalf of the respondents that the delay is not only of 479 days but is of more than 15 months as certified copy of the impugned judgment was sought to be placed on record much after filing of the instant application. In support of the aforesaid submissions, on behalf of the respondents, reliance is placed upon decisions reported in Ajit Singh Thakur Singh v. State of Gujarat, (1981) 1 SCC 495 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 184; Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom, Perinad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctioned. To explain the sequence of events, as disclosed in paragraph no: 3 to 9 of the instant application, during the course of hearing, attention of this Court was drawn by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/applicant to the correspondence (Annexure A-3 to Annexure A-7) to assert that it is common knowledge that on account of impersonal machinery and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with file pushing and passing-on-the-buck ethos, delay on the part of the State is less difficult to understand though more difficult to prove, but the State represents collective cause of the community and in the ultimate analysis, the sufferer is the public interest. Thus, it was fervently urged by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of India v. Om Prakash (supra) & Union of India v. Ram Kishan (Supra), while refusing to condone the delay, the merits of the case was also seen by the Supreme Court. 10. Infact, what counts is not the length of the delay but the sufficiency of the cause and each case has to be considered on its own merits while exercising the discretion in a rational and pragmatic manner. The Explanation for the delay ought not to be rejected by taking a pedantic and hypothetical view when stakes are high or arguable points of law are involved. Applying the principles which should control the exercise of discretion vested in the Courts in condoning the delay, Supreme Court in Balwant Singh (dead) v. Jagdish Singh, (2010) 8 SCC 685 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 5....