HARI KRISHNA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI R. C. Gupta, Counsel for the petitioner. On my asking Shri V. K. Sharma, Adv. appearing for respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the court below has erred in condoning the delay of seven days.

(2.) IN the matter of condoning the delay when litigation is resorted to by a governmental agency different parameters can be adopted. See, observation made in Writ Petition No. 1235 of 1993 decided on 8-1-1996 since reported as State of M. P. v. Smt. Bhoori, (1996) 1 Recent Revenue Reporter 747.

(3.) SEE also the view expressed by the Supreme Court in the case reported as State of M. P. v. S. S. Akolkar, 1996 (1) Recent Revenue Reporter 748. No doubt, the Supreme Court was dealing with the matter arising under Order 22, yet the court was of the view that the broad approach from public justice perspective is to be adopted. In para 7, it was observed as under :