H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) THERE is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 266 days in filing this appeal. ( 2 ) I have heard the learned Government Counsel Smt. L. Y. Premavathi. She strenuously contended that the said delay may be condoned in filing the appeal by taking liberal view in favour of the appellant considering the variety of activities and responsibilities with which the State is overburdenedly involved. I have applied my mind to the contentions of the learned government Pleader Smt. L. Y. Premavathi. ( 3 ) I have been taken through an affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant sworn to by a Section Officer. No doubt, it is one of the settled principles of law that looking to the variety of activities and responsibilities of the State Government some latitude has to be given to the State in the matter of condonation of delay. But, it does not mean that even if there is no explanation offered and the contents of the affidavit indicate negligence on the part of the officers concerned in dealing with the matter, the delay should be condoned. ( 4 ) THE present appeal has arisen from the judgment and decree or award dated 14th July, 1995, made by the District judge, Belgaum. Ordinarily the period of limitation is 90 days. No doubt, under law if an application for certified copy of the judgment and decree has been made within time, then the applicant is entitled to the period which has been taken in the preparation of the certified copy by the Court. ( 5 ) THE judgment having been delivered on 14-7-1995, application for copy thereof was given on 25th July, 1995. Copy became ready for delivery on 9-8-1995. Thus, it took a period of 16 days in all in the preparation and making the copy ready for delivery to the applicant. Thus the period of 90 days plus 16 days was available to the applicant/appellant to file the appeal under law, and the last date for filing the appeal was on 26th october, 1995. The present appeal has been filed on July 20, 1996. Burden is on the appellant to explain sufficient cause, his conduct and bona fides. Thus the period of 90 days plus 16 days was available to the applicant/appellant to file the appeal under law, and the last date for filing the appeal was on 26th october, 1995. The present appeal has been filed on July 20, 1996. Burden is on the appellant to explain sufficient cause, his conduct and bona fides. ( 6 ) A perusal of the certified copy discloses that the delivery was taken on 25th August, 1995, As I have mentioned earlier, the last date for filing the appeal was on 26-10-1995. But, no appeal had been filed on that day. The learned Additional government Pleader, as stated in paragraph 3 of the affidavit, had forwarded the opinion on 2-9-1995 i. e. almost one month and 24 days period was there with the Government to consider that matter before the limitation could expire. Though the affidavit discloses in its paragraph 3 that a copy of the judgment was forwarded to the Government on 2-9-1995 along with the other papers, it has not been shown how and for what reason the file was not received earlier than 2nd February, 1996. In the affidavit it has only been stated that "the said file was received on 2nd February, 1996" and the case worker of the Department again kept the file for more than two months with him. The case worker had put up the file before Under-Secretary only on 9th april, 1996. No doubt, it has only been stated vaguely that the main file namely LAW 158 LMB 85 was not readily traced in the section. Why it was not readily traceable is not explained. It is nowhere stated in the affidavit that the aforesaid file was missing or it has been lost. If. it was missing what steps were taken to trace out the same. Allegations in this regard in paragraph 3 are vague. It is further stated that "i state that the Under-Secretary reviewed the file and returned to litigation-II section", i. e. , the file was reviewed after it was put up on 9-4-1996. It has been stated earlier that the case worker has put up the file on 9-4-1996 and the Under-Secretary returned the file the same day i. e. , on 9-4-1996. From 9-4-1996, it appears, nothing was done by the case worker in the section. It has been stated earlier that the case worker has put up the file on 9-4-1996 and the Under-Secretary returned the file the same day i. e. , on 9-4-1996. From 9-4-1996, it appears, nothing was done by the case worker in the section. As stated in the affidavit, after 9-4-1996 file was again moved and it was sent to Additional Law Secretary-I on 17-5-1996. Why was it not sent to Additional Law Secretary on 9-4-1996 or immediately thereafter is not explained. However, the additional Law Secretary-I took a prompt decision on 18-5-1996, i. e. , the very next day on which file was moved to him i. e. , 17-5-1996, to prefer an appeal. Thereafter the draft Government order was put up on 21-5-1996 and was approved by the under-Secretary on 24-5-1996. After a copy of the Government order was signed on 29-5-1996, it was issued on 10-6-1996. There appears to be no sufficient or plausible explanation for the period between 2-9-1995 to 9-4-1996. There is also no explanation why the file could not be put before the under-Secretary or the Additional Law Secretary earlier to 17-5-1996. What was done during this period of 9-4-1996 to 17-5-1996? This indicates that either the case worker in the section or other Officers responsible acted nothing but in negligent and lethargic manner in moving the file to the higher officers for obtaining sanction. Irrespective of the fact that the government Counsel, Belgaum has forwarded his opinion much earlier than the expiry of limitation, there has been no sufficient explanation for the above mentioned period i. e. , from 2-9-1995 to 17-5-1996. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no sufficient explanation for not preferring the appeal either on 26-10-1995 or thereafter till the date on which it has been filed. ( 7 ) AS already mentioned, there was a lethargic approach and negligent attitude on the part of the Officers of the Department in forwarding the file. In paragraph 3, it is stated that "i state that while sending the Government order with appeal papers to the Advocate General's Office, delay note was not sent along with the same". Why was that not done? Officer should have looked into the matter. The Law Department is expected to be vigilant in looking into how much delay is there and why and to explain this has not been done. Why was that not done? Officer should have looked into the matter. The Law Department is expected to be vigilant in looking into how much delay is there and why and to explain this has not been done. Therefore, I do not think there is any bona fids reason for the delay, nor sufficient cause is explained for the delay in filing the appeal. ( 8 ) UNDER the circumstances, there is no need to issue notice to respondent in this, matter. I, therefore, dismiss the application for condonation of delay with a finding that no sufficient cause is shown for the delay in filing the appeal. ( 9 ) AS the application for condonation of delay is rejected, I hereby dismiss the appeal as barred by limitation. --- *** --- .