Delay/laches – Condonation of – Exercise of discretionary power – High Court condoned the delay of around 479 days in presentation of the appeal by the Department from the decision of the Reference Court whereby it had enhanced compensation payable to the landowners – Correctness of:

Held: Substantive rights of private parties and the State are not defeated at the threshold simply due to technical considerations of delay – However, condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial – There is no formula that caters to all situations – Sometimes, due to want of sufficient cause being shown or an acceptable explanation being proffered, delay of the shortest range may not be condoned whereas, in certain other cases, delay of long periods can be condoned if the explanation is satisfactory and acceptable – Courts must distinguish between an ‘explanation’ and an ‘excuse’ – High Court did not exercise discretion in an arbitrary manner – Order under challenge had to be a clearly wrong order so as to be liable for interference, which it is not – High Court’s decision to condone the delay on account of the department’s inability to present the appeal within time, for the reasons assigned therein, does not suffer from any error warranting interference – An exercise of discretion does, at times, call for a liberal and justice-oriented approach by Courts, where certain leeway could be provided to the State – Hidden forces that are at work in preventing an appeal by the State being presented within the prescribed period of limitation so as not to allow a higher court to pronounce upon the legality and validity of an order of a lower court and thereby secure unholy gains, cannot be ignored – Impediments in the working of the grand scheme of governmental functions have to be removed by taking a pragmatic view on balancing of the competing interests – Thus, the impugned order reasonably condoned the delay caused in presenting the appeal before the High Court. [Para 29, 30, 32, 37, 38]

Delay/laches – Condonation of – An ‘explanation’ and an ‘excuse’ offered for the delay – Difference between:

Held: Courts must distinguish between an ‘explanation’ and an ‘excuse’ – Care must be taken to distinguish explanation from excuse – An ‘explanation’ is designed to give someone all of the facts and lay out the cause for something – It helps clarify the circumstances of a particular event and allows the person to point out that something that has happened is not his fault, if it is really not his fault – An ‘excuse’ is often offered by a person to deny responsibility and consequences when under attack.