The acceptance of a claim of delay depends on the circumstances - "No strict rule should be established regarding cases in which a delay would be an obstacle in the way of seeking relief from this court" (High Court of Justice 76/49 Gutman v.' Inspector General of the Israel Police, פ"D D(1) 151, 154). Sometimes only a few days is enough to constitute a delay, and sometimes the passage of months is not enough to constitute a delay. Thus, for example, sometimes time passes due to the very negotiations between the petitioner and the governmental authority. This time does not work to the detriment of the petitioner, since he has "justification" for the petitioner (High Court of Justice 175/82 Gal N' Minister of the Interior, פ"4:37(1), 496 (1983)), provided that he turned quickly to the court, after the negotiations had been exhausted.
For our purposes - the long period that has passed, perhaps it indicates the state's dilemma regarding the interpretation of the relevant legislation and the proper legal policy, since if the matter had been clear and sharp - it is presumed that the state would have immediately cried out to correct the distortion. If this is indeed a matter of deliberation, it had something to rely on, as will be clarified below, and in any event, it ostensibly supports the acceptance of the claim of delay. Notwithstanding the above, I do not see fit to dismiss the petition in the matter of Official This is only for this reason, and this is due to the following reasons: 1. This is a fundamental issue that should be decided on its merits; In any case, the hearing on its merits is required in the case of Nachmani (the additional affair that comprises the petition); C. The claim of delay was not raised in the written arguments he submitted Official but only before us; D. It seems that in practice, the time that has elapsed has not changed the situation of the Official The hearing on its merits has not yet taken place (after the National Court returned the hearing to the Regional Court).