State of H.P. Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. Cr. MP(M) No. 1711 of 2025 01.07.2026 Present: Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General for the applicant/State. M/s Tejender Singh & Shivam Gautam, Advocates for respondent No.1. M/s Sunil Gautam, Harmohan and Shabnam, Advocates for respondents No. 2 to 4 and 6 to 9. Cr. MP No. 1711 of 2025 The applicant/State has filed the present application for condonation of the delay in filing the revision. It has been asserted that the order was passed on 04.01.2024. A certified copy thereof was applied on 14.02.2024. Thereafter, the matter was sent to the Principal Secretary to the Government of H.P. for taking the final decision. The matter was received in the Home Department on 06.03.2024, which referred it to the Law Department for seeking their opinion. The opinion of the Law Department was received on 14.03.2024. The matter was remitted to the competent authority for approval on 16.03.2024. The competent authority decided that the appeal should be filed, and the file was sent to the office of the Advocate General. The case file was returned to the District Magistrate, Bilaspur, H.P., for removal of objections and was received back in the Home Department on 15.06.2024. The District Magistrate Bilaspur forwarded the case to the office of the learned Advocate General, who raised certain objections. The Learned District Magistrate forwarded the case file to the Learned Advocate General on 19.08.2024 after removing the objections. Learned Advocate General returned the case file for filing an application seeking condonation of delay, which was received in the Home Department on 04.01.2025 and was diarised on 08.01.2025. The processing of the file led to the delay. Hence, the present application. 2. The application has been opposed by filing a reply on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 4, 6, 8 and 9, asserting that the provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act is equally applicable for the private party as well as the State Government. The applicant cannot claim any relaxation, stating that the departmental process consumes time. The applicant has narrated a flimsy story to justify the delay in filing the revision. The name of the District Magistrate, Chamba, was mentioned, whereas the case was dealt with by District Magistrate Bilaspur. There is a delay of 301 days in filing the revision, which has not been properly explained. Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be dismissed. 3. I have heard Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General for the applicant/State, M/s Tejender Singh & Shivam Gautam, Advocates for respondent No.1, and M/s Sunil Gautam, Harmohan and Shabnam, Advocates for respondents No. 2 to 4 and 6 to 9 and have gone through the records carefully. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the present application cannot be allowed because this Court has already adjudicated the matter arising out of the order dated 04.01.2024, in Cr. Revision No. 181 of 2024 decided on 16.05.2025. This submission will not help the respondents because the applicant has filed the present application seeking the condonation of delay, and while condoning the delay, the Court is not required to examine the merits of the case. 5. It was submitted that the name of District Magistrate, Chamba, was mentioned instead of District Magistrate, Bilaspur, in the application, which shows the casual nature of the application. This submission will not help the respondents because the order was passed by the learned Special Judge Bilaspur, and the name of the District Magistrate Bilaspur has been mentioned repeatedly in the application. Mere mention of District Magistrate Chamba at one place will be a clerical/typographical error and cannot result in the dismissal of the application. 6. As per the report of the Registry, there is a delay of 252 days and not 301 days, as stated in the reply to the application. 7. It was submitted that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act apply equally to the State as well as to the private party, and no one can claim any special exemption from the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. This submission will not help the respondents. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corpn., (2010) 5 SCC 459, that the Court should allow a certain latitude to the Government because the State represents the collective cause of the community, and the decisions are taken by the officers at a slow pace, causing the delay. 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 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. 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 State cannot be equated to a private person who does not have to process the matter through various authorities. 9. In the present case, the delay occurred in processing the files at various levels, which is a sufficient cause for the condonation of delay as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10. No other point was urged. 11. In view of the above, the present application is allowed, and the delay in filing the revision is ordered to be condoned. 12. Application stands disposed of. Cr. Revision Filing No. 6160 of 2025 13. The delay in filing the revision is ordered to be condoned as per the order passed in Cr.MP M No. 1711 of 2025. Revision be registered. 14. A copy of the revision be supplied to the learned counsel for the respondents within three days, and the matter be listed for consideration after two weeks. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 1st July, 2026 (Nikita)