Judgment 1. This appeal presented by and on behalf of the State is barred by 99 days and, therefore, an application for extension of period of limitation has been made, learned counsel Mr. K. P. Yadav appearing for the State and Mr. A. K. Singh for respondent heard. 2. This case was listed on 4-11-97 when this Court directed for an enquiry to be conducted by the Department concerned fixing responsibility as to on whose fault the appeal could not be presented in time so that appropriate action may be taken by the Department concerned against the erring officer. It has also been observed that a common practice has been developed to file almost all the appeals on behalf of the State after the lapse of the period of limitation without showing sufficient cause and good cause which actually prevented the officers of the State to file the appeal well within the period of limitation. 3. In this case even on the date of hearing of argument before the learned single Judge none appeared to defend and represent the case on behalf of the State Government despite the fact that a Galaxy of counsel has been engaged and heavy expenditure is being incurred on them by State Exchequer. It appears that because of non-representation of the case on behalf of the State, the learned single Judge had no option but to proceed in accordance with law and ultimately he passed the impugned order dated 8th July, 1996. 4. Pursuant to this Courts order dated 4-11-97 a Supplementary Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Appellants - State Government along with an enquiry report (Annexure A). The said enquiry report appears to have been submitted by the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, as to on whose fault the appeal could not be filed well within the period of limitation. 5. A perusal of the said enquiry report does not reveal satisfactory explanation of delay from the date of the impugned order i.e. from 8th July, 1996, to 3rd September, 1996 i.e. for 57 days and again from 5-10-96 to 17-10-96 - as instruction to file appeal was received in the office of the Advocate General on 4-10-96 and the Court was open till 17-10-96 and closed for Durga Puja holidays on 18-10-96. 6. 6. From the enquiry report it appears that a copy of the impugned order dated the 8th July, 1996, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4454 of 1985 was received by the Department concerned on 3-9-96 along with the representation of Puran Chandra Mahto, who is the writ petitioner and respondent in this appeal. This fact amply proves that no step was ever taken by the State Government to obtain in a copy or certified copy of the impugned order dated 8-7-96 for presenting appeal well within the period of limitation. However, steps were taken for according approval to file Letters Patent Appeal on the representation of the writ petitioner and accordingly the dealing assistant Mr. Dilip Kumar placed the file before the Sectional Incharge Mr. Srikrishna Pathak on 7-9-96, who placed it before the Assistant Director Mr. Gopal Jee on 10-9-96. Thereafter the file was placed before the Dy. Director Mr. A. K. Mukherjee who placed the file before the then Director Mr. A. Swaroop on 17-9-96 with a proposal that a request may be made to the order dated 8th July, 1996.4. Pursuant to this Courts order dated 4-11-97 a Supplementary Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Appellants - State Government along with an enquiry report (Annexure A). The said enquiry report appears to have been submitted by the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, as to on whose fault the appeal could not be filed well within the period of limitation.5. A perusal of the said enquiry report does not reveal satisfactory explanation of delay from the date of the impugned order i.e. from 8th July, 1996, to 3rd September, 1996 i.e. for 57 days and again from 5-10-96 to 17-10-96 - as instruction to file appeal was received in the office of the Advocate General on 4-10-96 and the Court was open till 17-10-96 and closed for Durga Puja holidays on 18-10-96.6. From the enquiry report it appears that a copy of the impugned order dated 8th July, 1996, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4454 of 1985 was received by the Department concerned on 3-9-96 along with the representation of Puran Chandra Mahto, who is the writ petitioner and respondent in this appeal. This fact amply proves that no step was ever taken by the State Government to obtain a copy or certified copy of the impugned order dated 8-7-96 for presenting appeal well within the period of limitation. This fact amply proves that no step was ever taken by the State Government to obtain a copy or certified copy of the impugned order dated 8-7-96 for presenting appeal well within the period of limitation. However, steps were taken for according approval to file Letters Patent Appeal on the representation of the writ petitioner and accordingly the dealing assistant Mr. Dilip Kumar placed the file before the Sectional Incharge Mr. Srikrishna Pathak on 7-9-96, who placed it before the Assistant Director Mr. Gopal Jee on 10-9-96. Thereafter the file was placed before the Dy. Director Mr. A. K. Mukherjee who placed the file before the then Director Mr. A. Swaroop on 17-9-96 with a proposal that a request may be made to the Advocate General, Bihar, for filing Letters Patent Appeal. It appears that on 19-9-96 the then Director accorded approval for filing the appeal. Thereafter a draft statement of facts was placed by the dealing assistant on 23-9-96 before the Sectional Incharge, who placed the file before the Dy. Director on 26-9-96 and the draft was approved by the then Director, Secondary Education, on 28-9-96, and, accordingly instruction for filing the appeal was sent to the office of the Advocate General on 3-10-96, which was received in the office of the Advocate General on 4-10-96. However, no appeal could be filed till 6-11-96 contending that the Court was closed for Durga Puja holidays from 18-10-96 to 30-10-96. Here again no explanation has been furnished as to why the appeal could not be filed soon after the reopening of the Court after Durga Puja holidays. The Court was closed upto 30-10-96 and the appeal has been presented on 7-11-96. 7. We may observe that it is not for the first time that a delayed appeal has been filed without furnishing satisfactory explanation but it has become a routine practice in the Government office and in the office of the Advocate General that despite receiving instruction in time appeals are being filed beyond the period of limitation for the reasons best known to them. 8. Limitation prescribes for filing Letters Patent Appeal is 30 days. The impugned order in the instant case was passed on 8-7-96. We have already observed above that no action was taken by the Department concerned to file the appeal and the Department woke up only after the receipt of representation from the writ petitioner. 8. Limitation prescribes for filing Letters Patent Appeal is 30 days. The impugned order in the instant case was passed on 8-7-96. We have already observed above that no action was taken by the Department concerned to file the appeal and the Department woke up only after the receipt of representation from the writ petitioner. This is how the State agencies have proceeded in the instant case in a very leisurely manner as if the law of limitation has no application in State cases, whereas law in this regard is well settled that each days delay is to be explained showing sufficient cause and good cause which actually prevented the party concerned in presenting the appeal well within the period of limitation. 9. We have already observed that in this case no explanation has been furnished for the periods as detailed in the preceding paragraphs of this order excepting citing a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana V/s. Chandra Mani, 1996 (3) SCC 132 : ( AIR 1996 SC 1623 ) wherein it is ruled that at page 1626 (of AIR) :"When the State is an applicant, praying for condonation of delay, it is common knowledge that on account of impersonal machinery and the inherited breaucratic methodology imbued with the note-making, file pushing and passing on-the-buck ethos, the delay on the part of the State is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve, but the State represents collective cause of the community. Decisions are taken by the officers/agencies proverbially at slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the file from table to table and keeping it on table for considerable time causing delay - intentional or otherwise is a routine."Therefore, it is submitted that the delay in the instant case deserves to be condoned. 10. No doubt, if the delay is caused simply on account of red-tapism, some amount of latitude deserves to be granted; but, if unexplained delay is caused by the State Officers, in our opinion, no indulgence deserves to be shown for excusing the inordinate delay. The ratio laid down in the case of State of Haryana V/s. Chandra Mani (supra) does not show that in all cases even if where inordinate delay has not been explained successfully, the period of limitation is to be extended always in State Appeals. 11. The ratio laid down in the case of State of Haryana V/s. Chandra Mani (supra) does not show that in all cases even if where inordinate delay has not been explained successfully, the period of limitation is to be extended always in State Appeals. 11. Thus while considering the application for condoning the delay and extending the period of limitation the test to be applied by the Court is, as to whether the appellant has acted diligently in prosecuting the case by explaining each days delay reasonably failing which indeed it will deprive the party concerned in securing protection under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. We may observe that yet the ratio laid down in Ramlal V/s. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361 laying down the law that each days delay has to be explained successfully has not as yet been overruled by the Apex Court rather on the other hand the same has been approved and reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana V/s. Chandra Mani (supra). 12. Therefore, this being the test and if with this touch-stone the facts of the present case are examined nothing comes out to show that diligent effort has ever been made on behalf of the appellant in pushing the file from table to table despite admitted position of red-tapism at Secretariat level. Therefore, inaction on the part of the appellant has not at all been explained. There is no explanation right from the date of the order i.e. 8-7-96 till the date of receipt of information in the department concerned on 3-9-96 i.e. for 57 days. On the other hand, it is the writ petitioner, who filed his representation and only thereafter the State officials woke up and took steps to file the appeal. 13. Thus, the inaction on the part of the appellant in prosecuting the proceedings of the case diligently has not at all been established successfully. Therefore, the said decision in the case of State of Haryana V/s. Chandra Mani (supra) is not of much help to the appellant. 14. 13. Thus, the inaction on the part of the appellant in prosecuting the proceedings of the case diligently has not at all been established successfully. Therefore, the said decision in the case of State of Haryana V/s. Chandra Mani (supra) is not of much help to the appellant. 14. On the other hand, in a recent pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of P. K. Ramchandran V/s. State of Kerala, JT 1997 (8) SC 189 : ( AIR 1998 SC 2276 ) it is ruled that at page 2277 (of AIR) :"Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds."Meaning thereby that each days delay has to be explained satisfactorily. 15. In this context it will not be out of place to mention here that liberal view shown by the Courts in this regard is being misunderstood by the Government officers and it appears that under this mistaken notion they labour that a vested right has been conferred upon them by judicial pronouncement as if the law of limitation has no application to the State Government and that whenever delayed appeal would be filed, taking a liberal view, as of right, the delay would be condoned. That is why as a result of liberal view taken by the Court, the Government officers have become more complacent. 16. But this cannot be allowed when the doctrine of State immunity is being diluted and transparency and accountability are being introduced to tone up the working of cumbersome bureaucratic procedure. This is perhaps because State immunity has been uprooted from the land of its birth by Crown Proceeding Act, 1947, in England itself. In this regard it is relevant to mention the maxim "Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt" means the laws come for the rescue of those who are vigilant but were not sleepy.Thus, the object of limitation Act can not be lost sight of. In this regard it is relevant to mention the maxim "Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt" means the laws come for the rescue of those who are vigilant but were not sleepy.Thus, the object of limitation Act can not be lost sight of. In this context the maxim "Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium" which means - there should be an end of litigation and interest of the State also requires that there should be an end to the litigation so as to avoid uncertainties of the litigation and possibilities of parties being dragged in the Courts for an indefinite period is also to be avoided and to get over this, the law of limitation has been enacted extending a valuable right in favour of the party against whom within the period of limitation no action is brought before the Court, save in exceptional cases where a case for condonation of delay is made out within the meaning of Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, providing due diligence. 17. In the case of Rajendra Singh V/s. Santa Singh AIR 1973 SC 2573 the Apex Court has held (at page 2542) :"the object of law of limitation is to prevent disturbance or deprivation of what may have acquired in equity and justice."Thus, the law of limitation not only intends to create certainty in the courts proceedings but also maintains discipline in the judicial proceedings so as to provide uniformity amongst the litigants; yet no law has been enacted in the matter of limitation giving upper hands creating any discrimination amongst the litigants if the State emerges as a litigant. Thus, it does not depend upon the whims or convenience of the State agency in taking a decision for filing the appeals leisurely according to the convenience of the State officers and if little latitude is shown in this regard in favour of the State, on account of cumbersome bureaucratic procedure, why not the private litigants be also treated with the same yard-stick and if that will be so then what would be the purpose and necessity of the law of limitation. Therefore, if the private litigants are expected to proceed by complying with the law of limitation at the cost of their vocation and occupation i.e. business and cultivation activities why the State can not be treated at par upon whom heavy expenditure is being incurred by public exchequer. 18. Therefore, if the private litigants are expected to proceed by complying with the law of limitation at the cost of their vocation and occupation i.e. business and cultivation activities why the State can not be treated at par upon whom heavy expenditure is being incurred by public exchequer. 18. Indeed it is a matter of regret that the law knowing officers of the State, who know the law and are not ignorant about its rigorous and requirements, are dealing with the case files carelessly. This is due to the fact that no stern action is being taken by the State Government holding such officers liable to the loss sustained to the public exchequer on account of non-filing of the appeal in time. 19. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the officers of the State are also accountable for their negligence in discharge of their official duty and are liable for negligence not only for misfeasance but for malfeasance and nonfeasance as well. So, it is for the State Government to take appropriate action against such erring officer or officers due to whose fault the appeal could not be filed in time and loss has been sustained to public exchequer because of their inaction in taking steps promptly. 20. Before we part with the case, we direct that necessary enquiry be made in the matter fixing liability upon the erring officer who is responsible for such inordinate delay on account of which the State has to suffer. 21. Thus, from the foregoing discussions, in our considered opinion, no case is made out for condonation of delay. The application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is thus rejected. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed being barred by limitation. 22. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Chief Secretary, State of Bihar, for his perusal and taking necessary steps in the matter so that State appeals may be filed well within the period of limitation. S.K.Singh , J. :-. 23 I agree.Application rejected.