1 Executive Director (Personnel) HPSEBL vs. The Director GNG Trading Company Ltd. Cr.MP(M) No. 812 of 2024 Reserved on: 29.07.2026 11.08.2026 Present: Mr Bhairav Gupta, Advocate, vice Mr Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr Jagmohan Singh Chandel, Advocate, for respondent. Cr.MP(M) No. 812 of 2024 The applicant has filed the present application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It has been asserted that the applicant had filed a complaint, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Shimla on 17.07.2023. The matter was processed by the Bank Reconciliation Section of Finance and Accounts Wing of the applicant on 22.07.2023, and it was proposed to obtain the advice of Legal Cell of HPSEB. The matter was examined by Legal Cell, and it was suggested to have the opinion of Standing Counsel-cum- Legal Advisor. The matter was taken up with the Legal Advisor, who went through the record and advised that the matter be assailed by filing an appeal. He also suggested that the opinion of learned counsel, who was conducting the arbitration case, be also obtained. The learned counsel advised engaging some senior counsel, who was dealing with criminal cases. A counsel was engaged, but the file 2 was not complete. Thereafter, the appeal was prepared. The delay occurred because of the process of consultation. Hence, it was prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing the revision be condoned. 2. The application is opposed by filing a reply making preliminary submission regarding lack of maintainability and sufficient cause. The contents of the application were denied on the merits. It was asserted that the time consumed in obtaining the document and legal opinion cannot be excluded. The communication between the applicant and learned counsel does not constitute a sufficient cause for the condonation of delay. The entire record was in the custody of the applicant since the date of filing of the complaint; therefore, it was prayed that the present application be dismissed. 3 I have heard Mr Bhairav Gupta, learned vice counsel representing the applicant and Mr Jagmohan Singh Chandel, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Mr Bhairav Gupta, learned counsel representing the applicant, submitted that the applicant could not file the appeal before the Court because it had to consult various officers and the standing counsel, which took some time. The delay in filing the appeal is bona fide and sufficiently explained. Therefore, he prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing the 3 appeal be condoned. 5. Mr Jagmohan Singh Chandel, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the process of consultation between various departments and legal counsel does not constitute sufficient cause. The applicant failed to explain each day's delay. Therefore, he prayed that the present application be dismissed. 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. As per the report of the Registry, there is a delay of 35 days in filing the appeal by the applicant. The applicant is HP State Electricity Board, which is a corporation and has to act through various offices and cannot take a decision like a private individual. Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corpn., (2010) 5 SCC 459, that the Courts are generally liberal in condoning the delay of short duration. It was further held that a certain latitude is permissible in case of the State and its agencies/instrumentalities. It was observed: - 15. The expression “sufficient cause” employed in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice. Although, no hard- and-fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the 4 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 (L.A.) v. Katiji [(1987) 2 SCC 107: AIR 1987 SC 1353], N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC 123: JT (1998) 6 SC 242] and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil [(2001) 9 SCC 106]. 16. 16. In dealing with the applications for condonation of delay filed on behalf of the State and its agencies/instrumentalities this Court has, while emphasising 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. Land Acquisition Officer [(1988) 2 SCC 142], State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani [(1996) 3 SCC 132: AIR 1996 SC 1623], State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 SCC 309: 1996 SCC (L&S) 1240], State of Bihar v. Ratan Lal Sahu [(1996) 10 SCC 635], State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO [(2005) 3 SCC 752: 2005 SCC (Cri) 906] and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaan [(2008) 14 SCC 582 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 864]. 8. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to certain latitude while condoning the delay. 9. In the present case, there is a delay of only 35 days in filing the appeal, which is not significant and can occur because of consultation between various departments and legal counsel. Therefore, the same can be condoned as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 10. In view of the above, the present application is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is ordered to be condoned. The present application stands disposed of. 5 Cr.MP No. of 2026(Cr.MPST No. 9925 of 2023) 11. The delay in filing the appeal has been condoned as per order passed in Cr.MP (M) No.812 of 2024. 12. It be registered. 13. The reply, if any, be filed in two weeks, and the matter be listed for consideration thereafter. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 11th August, 2026. (Ravinder)