The present case came before the court after the division bench of High Court refused to condone the delay of 109 days in filing the appeal. Supreme Court observed that: court generally adopts liberal approach in condonation of delay. It is equally common knowledge that the litigants including the State are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner. When the State is an applicant, praying for condonation of delay, it is common knowledge that on account of impersonal machinery and the inherited bureaucratic methodology delay on the part of the State is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve, but the State represents collective cause of the community.

The decisions are taken by officer/agencies proverbially at slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table and keeping it on table for considerable time causing delay, intentional or otherwise, is a routine. Considerable delay of procedural red tape in the process of their making decision is a common feature. Therefore, certain amount of latitude is not impermissible. If the appeals brought by the State are lost for such default, no person is individually affected but what in the ultimate analysis suffers, is public interest.”

The Court held that the expression ‘sufficient cause’ should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day’s delay. Equally, the State cannot be put on the same footing as an individual. The individual would always be quick in taking the decision whether he would pursue the remedy by way of an appeal or application since he is a person legally injured while state is impersonal machinery working through its officers or servants. Keeping all these facts and circumstances and the state machinery per se the court condoned the delay of 109 days.