JUDGMENT Shri Raghuwanshi, learned Govt. Advocate, for the appellant State. He is heard on the question of condonation of delay - I.A. 3277/93. This application has been opposed by the respondent. While it is true that a liberal approach in the matter of condoning delay is to be adopted but even this liberality has a limit. It cannot be utilised or exploited at infinity. In the case at hand, the appellant State was directed to ascertain the names of those erring officers who contributed to the delay in filing of this appeal. Despite repeated opportunities sought the State has not come out with names of those officers. According to the appellant-State the delay caused in filing this appeal is only 24 days. On simple calculation from 22.12.92 the date of judgment, the period for filing appeal expired on 23.3.93. Certified copy of the judgment was applied for by the appellant-State on 29.12.92 and certified copy was delivered on 13.1.93. In all 15 days were lost in obtaining certified copy of the impugned judgment. Going by the copying slip even in the matter of delays for collecting certified copy there are laches on the part of Appellate State which reduces the number of days lost in obtaining certified copy to only 8 days. While the applicant was to appear on 6.1.93 he appeared on 13.1.93 but even including this and taking a total period of 15 days, consumed by the appellant-State for obtaining certified copy, the appeal sought to have filed by 8.4.93 whereas it has been filed on 21.6.93. The appellant-State while calculating time, excluded the period of vacation. But in view of the fact that the period of limitation had already expired prior to commencement of vacation, this exclusion of the summer vacation is not available to the appellant-State. Summer vacation commenced from 10.5.93 although the preceding two days 8th and 9th were also holidays being Saturday and Sunday yet there was more than a month left for the State if it so desired to file the appeal but that was not to be. Summer vacation commenced from 10.5.93 although the preceding two days 8th and 9th were also holidays being Saturday and Sunday yet there was more than a month left for the State if it so desired to file the appeal but that was not to be. Now adverting to the application for condonation of delay and the affidavit sworn in support thereof, it is that kind of routine protocol type of affidavit invariably filed by the State taking shelter behind the routine practice prevailing in the department and it is on the basis of this practice that condonation of delay is sought. Shri Raghuwanshi, G.A., submitted that there was no intentional delay. The question is not of being intentional in causing delay; the question is whether the State was vigilant enough in filing the appeal. The Law Department is necessarily involved in such matters as is also evident from the application. While the time was fast running, it was on 18th March, 93 that the opinion was sent and what is more surprising that the Law Deptt. granted its sanction to file appeal when on 15.3.93 the time had already run out and expired on 7.4.93. There is absolutely not a word as to how the Law Deptt of State from 6.4.93 to 15.4.93 was sitting tight over the matter and oblivious of the fact that there is something like law of limitation in the statute book. What follows thereafter is the delay caused in appointing officer-incharge of the case. The sanction is accorded after expiry of the statutory period prescribed for filing of appeal; the appointment of officer-incharge follows even months thereafter. While these facts are set, there is not a word by way of condoning factor as to why this delay has been caused. The cause shown can be liberally construed but it is a case where no cause as such is shown and liberal construction cannot be done in vacuum. There is total lack of cause. Even the State Law Department appears to be oblivious of the, Law of Limitation, as is evident from the affidavit. Even after expiry of the period prescribed for filing of appeal the proceeding goes on. Except for a die-hard practice, prevailing in the Govt Deptt., there is hardly any cause shown for condonation of delay. What is significant to note is that there is no condoning factor, which may be liberally construed. Even after expiry of the period prescribed for filing of appeal the proceeding goes on. Except for a die-hard practice, prevailing in the Govt Deptt., there is hardly any cause shown for condonation of delay. What is significant to note is that there is no condoning factor, which may be liberally construed. It is in these circumstances, that the Court is left with no option but to dismiss the application; the application for condonation of delay is, therefore, dismissed; Consequently the appeal also dismissed as barred by time. Raghuvanshi for State.