STATE OF M P Vs. RAGHUVIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS per office note this appeal is barred by 53 days. Application seeking condonation of delay has been filed. It has been mentioned in the application that for the purposes of preferring this appeal against the order passed by learned Single Judge, the usual procedure was adopted for getting the sanction from different departments. Contention is that the grant of sanction has taken longer time than what was expected, hence the delay has been caused.

(2.) SHOW cause notice of the application was issued to the respondent. Respondent has submitted its reply. In the reply it has been contended that appellants had obtained another copy of the impugned order also, but the same has not been annexed. According to the respondent the earlier copy which was received much earlier, would have been filed by the appellants, then there would be delay of 253 days. It has also been contended that nothing has been mentioned in their application filed for condonation of delay with regard to obtaining of the earlier copy of the order. Thus, according to it, the same amounts to suppression of materia] facts and the discretion, which is required to be exercised while considering the application for delay, should not be exercised in favour of the appellants.

(3.) AFTER having heard the counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, we find that the delay has properly been explained by the appellants. They have shown good and sufficient cause for the being able to prefer the appeal within the period of limitation. Thus, the delay stands hereby condoned. Heard on merits.