STATE OF U P Vs. RAM KISHUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. Heard Sri S. N. Singh, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners.

(2.) THE petitioners have challenged the judgment dated 16-3-2004 passed by the District Judge, Kushi Nagar. THEre is a delay of two years and 124 days in approaching the writ Court. THE explanation for condoning the delay has been averred in paragraph-18 of the writ petition which stated that the department sought permission for filing the writ petition and, in that regard, the file had to pass from one table to another table and, therefore, that it took some time in granting the permission. THE said paragraph further stated that the Court should take a lenient view, while condoning the delay, in the cases filed on behalf of the State Government.

(3.) WHAT constitutes "sufficient cause" cannot be laid down by any hard and fast principle. The discretion given to the Court cannot be defined or crystallised in a rigid rule of law. The Supreme Court in a number of cases has observed that the expression "sufficient cause" should be construed liberally if it finds that the litigant had acted with reasonable diligence in pursuing the matter. If the Court finds that there was lack of bona fide or negligence on the part of the party the application was liable to be refused.