State of H.P.Vs.Sagar Dilotra Cr.MP(M) No. 2140 of 2025 Reserved on:17.07.2026 27.07.2026 Present: Mr Lokender Kutlehira, Additional Advocate General, for the applicant/appellant. M/s Karan Kapoor and Vikrant Negi, Advocates, for the non- applicant/respondent. The applicant/appellant has filed the present application for condonation of delay of 202 days in filing the appeal. It has been asserted that the certified copy of the judgment was applied for on 01.03.2024. It was attested on 07.03.2024 and was delivered on 12.03.2024. The case was examined by the learned District Attorney/Public Prosecutor, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., who sent it to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh for taking a final decision. The matter was examined and was referred to the Law Department for seeking its opinion. It was submitted to the competent authority for consideration and taking the decision. The competent authority decided that an appeal had to be filed and the matter was referred to the office of the Advocate General. The Office of the Advocate General returned the file with some objections. The objections 2 were removed by the District Magistrate, Kullu, H.P. and the appeal was filed before this Court. The delay occurred because various authorities had to be consulted. Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. 2. The application is opposed by filing a reply asserting that there is a delay of 172 days in filing the appeal, which has not been properly explained. The reasons furnished in the application do not constitute sufficient cause. The condonation of delay would cause serious prejudice to the non-applicant/respondent. Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be dismissed. 3. A rejoinder denying the contents of the reply and affirming those of the application was filed. 4. I have heard Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the applicant/State and M/s Karan Kapoor and Vikrant Negi, learned counsel for the non-applicant/respondent. 5. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the applicant/State, submitted that the State had to consult various authorities, which 3 takes time. The delay in the present case also occurred because of the process of consultation. Therefore, he prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. 6. Mr Karan Kapoor, learned counsel for the non-applicant/respondent submitted that the State has not properly explained the delay in filing the appeal. The consultation with various departments is no reason for the condonation of delay. The law of limitation binds the State and the people in a similar manner and the State cannot claim any privilege in the matter of condonation of delay; therefore, he prayed that the present application be dismissed. 7. I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 8. 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 the State cannot claim any special exemption from the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. This submission will not help the respondent. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. 4 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 5 [(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]. 9. Therefore, the State cannot be equated to a private person who does not have to process the matter through various authorities. 10. In the present case, the delay occurred because various authorities had to be consulted, which is inevitable. Hence, the delay has been properly explained. 11. In view of the above, the present application is allowed, and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The present application stands disposed of. Cr. Appeal No. of 2026 (Cr.A(C-SB) No. 7909 of 2025) 12. The delay in filing the appeal has been ordered to be condoned as per the order passed in Cr.MP(M) No. 2140 of 2025. 13. It is registered. 14. The non-applicant/respondent is directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of ₹ 25,000/- with one surety in the amount to the satisfaction of learned 6 Trial Court/ Additional Registrar (Judicial) of this Court with an undertaking to appear before this Court as and when directed to do so and surrender before the learned Trial Court in case of acceptance of appeal within a period of two weeks. 14. Learned Trial Court is directed to transmit the bonds, so furnished by the non- applicant/respondent, for placing them on record. 15. Prima facie, the maintainability of the appeal is seriously doubtful. 16. List the matter for consideration after three weeks on the question of maintainability. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 27th July, 2026. (Ravinder)