Short Note : 1. It was admitted that the appeal was barred by 5 days. The ground taken in the application was that the proposal to fire appeal was moved by Collector Raipur to Secretary, Revenue Department on 17-10-1977 which was forwarded by the Revenue Department to the Law Department for issue of sanction on 1-11-1977 Law Department issued sanction on 3-11-1977 and directed Collector, Raipur to take necessary steps to file the appeal. The sanction issued by registered post by the Law Department was received in the office of the Advocate General on 8-11-1977 and the appeal was filed on the same day. In support of this application an affidavit of Shri M. R. Sarthy, Deputy Collector, Raipur had been filed. Held : The facts, as have been stated in the application clearly show the negligence on the part of the concerned officers in making an undue delay in filing application for a certified copy. That however, is not material as the application was filed within limitation The authorities concerned having known that the question of limitation is likely to arise owing to their own default in making a delayed application for copy further continued to deal with the matter in a most easy manner which is apparent from the fact that the sufficient time was taken in the Revenue Department also while dealing with the file However, when the matter reached the Law Department on 1-11-1977 the limitation had not expired and had the matter been dealt with expeditiously there was no reason as to why the appeal could not have been filed in time. Admittedly, the day on which the Law Department issued the sanction was the last day of the limitation. Instead of moving the matter fast which could have been easily done by the Government they felt commended by sending the sanction by registered post. It is not clear as to on what day in fact the registered letter was actually despatched from the Law Department. As this Court feels the letter possibly may not have taken far long so as to be delivered in the office of Advocate General on 8-11-1977 Thus even ignoring the negligence of the concerned officers or the department till the expiry of the period of limitation, this Court is not satisfied that the delay of each day after the limitation period is in good faith and bona fide. In the opinion of this Court, it does not even stand explained. Merely saying that the sanction was issued on 3-11-1977 and was received in the office of the Advocate General on 8-11-1977 that two supported by an affidavit of a person who is fully unconcerned, both with the Law Department as also with the office of the Advocate General is no explanation for these days. Application dismissed. Appeal dismissed.