JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J. - This first appeal is reported by the Stamp Reporter to be beyond time by 161 days from 8.2.2010. It is also reported that there is deficiency of 10335/- in payment of the court fee according to valuation of the appeal, and accordingly the appeal is reported to be defective one and has been filed alongwith delay condonation application No. 205599 of 2010 supported by affidavit. 2. I have heard Sri Shrish Chandra, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant - State of U.P. and perused the reasons given in the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application explaining the delay. 3. It appears from the averments made in the affidavit that there might not be negligence on part of the State for the period upto 31.12.2009. But thereafter delay has not properly been explained and cursory statement has been made to cover up the delay in filing the appeal. There is no reasonable explanation as to why appeal was not filed immediately after 31.12.2009. It is beyond comprehension why the government did not grant permission for filing the appeal immediately after 31.12.2009 which was allegedly granted on 7.4.2010 which is said to have been received alongwith copy of the letter dated 21.4.2010. There is also no explanation given as to why the Executive Engineer, East Ganga Canal, Construction Division-7, district Bijnor after receipt of the permission, had not filed the appeal immediately and instructed the Assistant Engineer, East Ganga Canal Construction Division only after about a month for filing the appeal. 4. The statement made in paragraph no. 13 of the affidavit that from 15.5.2010 to 30.6.2010 the officials of the department were busy in Jangarana of the country and as such could not approach the Court to file the appeal, is very vague. This paragraph does not explain at all as to whether the deponent of the affidavit was actually involved in Jangarana or not. Even if he was involved in Jangarana, it is not explained in the affidavit as to why no other person who was not involved in Jangarana was not sent for filing the appeal. Even if this period is overlooked, admittedly the Court had opened on July 1, 2010, yet the official allegedly contacted office of the standing counsel on 9.7.2010. 5. Even if this period is overlooked, admittedly the Court had opened on July 1, 2010, yet the official allegedly contacted office of the standing counsel on 9.7.2010. 5. It appears from the averments made in the affidavit that there is negligence as well as latches on the part of officers concerned in filing the appeal which was unexplained. Day to day delay in filing the appeal has not reasonably been explained. 6. It is also an admitted fact that the D.G.C. (civil) had applied for certified copy of the impugned judgment dated 26.10.2009 and decree dated 10.11.2009, on 28.10.2009 which was ready on the notice board on 11.11.2009 and was delivered on 12.11.2009, yet the officials of the department had contacted office of the standing counsel without proper valuation of the court fee sanctioned. There is no even a whisper why the State Government which is not a pauper, did not sanction full court fee particularly when the appeal is filed with latches of more than 161 days. 7. Considering the above explanation given in the delay condonation application and noting the fact that there is huge deficiency in court fee also, in the considered opinion of this Court, no ground is made out to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 8. Generally, the Courts adopt lenient view while deciding the application for condonation of delay. However, the position now has become critical and requires remedial approach to the Government Officers who keep the matters pending and take their own time to grant permission for challenging the orders in higher courts either because they are incapable of taking decision in such matters or do not want to take a decision. The State Government is the bigger litigant in country. It has the aid of Govt. Counsels in lower judiciary, Standing Counsels in High Courts and Govt. Advocates on panel in Apex Court. The State Government has its legal cells for various departments and highly professional legal officers on its rolls. Even though provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act make no distinction between State and citizens, it appears that they have taken the courts in their hand for condoning the delay whenever they file petition as in some cases the Apex Court and the High Courts have granted them liberty in the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case by condoning delay in filing the petitions. This attitude of the State Government is to be changed and the Courts cannot pamper the lethargic and mental relapsed condition of such State offices and their officers for not taking a decision timely in filing petition or appeals. The rights of successful party cannot be kept at by for all times to come till the State Govt. or its officers wake from their slumber. 9. It is not expected to a Govt. machinery which consists of all possible expertise and has the benefit of opinion of its counsels as in the present case to continue in hyper motion. The posts of Secretary & Chief Secretary to the Govt. are posts of responsibility and they have to take a decision within reasonable time if in their opinion appeals, revisions and writ petitions etc. are to be filed from the orders of lower courts. 10. The Courts cannot humour the State Govt. by casually condoning delay in approaching the seat of justice. Everyone, whether State or a citizen is equal in the eyes of law. 11. In this regard a reference may also be made to the latest judgment reported in Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner vs. Mohan Lal, in which the Apex court in paragraph nos. 4, 5 and 6 of the judgment held thus :- 4. It is a matter of concern that such frivolous and unjust litigation by governments and statutory authorities are on the increase. Statutory Authorities exist to discharge statutory functions in public interest. They should be responsible litigants. They cannot raise frivolous and unjust objections, nor act in a callous and highhanded manner. They can not behave like some private litigants with profiteering motives. Nor can they resort to unjust enrichment. They are expected to show remorse or regret when their officers act negligently or in an overbearing manner. When glaring wrong acts by their officers is brought to their notice, for which there is no explanation or excuse, the least that is expected is restitution/ restoration to the extent possible with appropriate compensation. Their harsh attitude in regard to genuine grievances of the public and their indulgence in unwarranted litigation requires to be corrected. 5. This Court has repeatedly expressed the view that the governments and statutory authorities should be model or ideal litigants and should not put forth false, frivolous, vexatious, technical (but unjust) contentions to obstruct the path of justice. Their harsh attitude in regard to genuine grievances of the public and their indulgence in unwarranted litigation requires to be corrected. 5. This Court has repeatedly expressed the view that the governments and statutory authorities should be model or ideal litigants and should not put forth false, frivolous, vexatious, technical (but unjust) contentions to obstruct the path of justice. We may refer to some of the decisions in this behalf. 5.1) In Dilbagh Rai Jarry vs. Union of India where this Court extracted with approval, the following statement (from an earlier decision of the Kerala High Court): "The State, under our Constitution, undertakes economic activities in a vast and widening public sector and inevitably gets involved in disputes with private individuals. But it must be remembered that the State is no ordinary party trying to win a case against one of its own citizens by hook or by crook; for the State's interest is to meet honest claims, vindicate a substantial defence and never to score a technical point or overreach a weaker party to avoid a just liability or secure an unfair advantage, simply because legal devices provide such an opportunity. The State is a virtuous litigant and looks with unconcern on immoral forensic successes so that if on the merits the case is weak, government shows a willingness to settle the dispute regardless of prestige and other lesser motivations which move private parties to fight in court. The lay-out on litigation costs and executive time by the State and its agencies is so staggering these days because of the large amount of litigation in which it is involved that a positive and wholesome policy of cutting back on the volume of law suits by the twin methods of not being tempted into forensic show-downs where a reasonable adjustment is feasible and ever offering to extinguish a pending proceeding on just terms, giving the legal mentors of government some initiative and authority in this behalf. I am not indulging in any judicial homily but only echoing the dynamic national policy on State litigation evolved at a Conference of Law Ministers of India way back in 1957. 5.2 In Madras Port Trust v. Hymanshu International by its Proprietor v. Venkatadri (Dead) by L.Rs. held: "2... I am not indulging in any judicial homily but only echoing the dynamic national policy on State litigation evolved at a Conference of Law Ministers of India way back in 1957. 5.2 In Madras Port Trust v. Hymanshu International by its Proprietor v. Venkatadri (Dead) by L.Rs. held: "2... It is high time that governments and public authorities adopt the practice of not relying upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of citizens and do what is fair and just to the citizens. Of course, if a government or a public authority takes up a technical plea, the Court has to decide it and if the plea is well founded, it has to be upheld by the court, but what we feel is that such a plea should not ordinarily be taken up by a government or a public authority, unless of course the claim is not well-founded and by reason of delay in filing it, the evidence for the purpose of resisting such a claim has become unavailable...." 5.3) In a three Judge Bench judgment of Bhag Singh & Ors. v. Union Territory of Chandigarh through LAC, Chandigarh : "3... The State Government must do what is fair and just to the citizen and should not, as far as possible, except in cases where tax or revenue is received or recovered without protest or where the State Government would otherwise be irretrievably be prejudiced, take up a technical plea to defeat the legitimate and just claim of the citizen." 6. Unwarranted litigation by governments and statutory authorities basically stem from the two general baseless assumptions by their officers. They are: (i) All claims against the government/statutory authorities should be viewed as illegal and should be resisted and fought up to the highest court of the land. (ii) If taking a decision on an issue could be avoided, then it is prudent not to decide the issue and let the aggrieved party approach the Court and secures a decision. The reluctance to take decisions, or tendency to challenge all orders against them, is not the policy of the governments or statutory authorities, but is attributable to some officers who are responsible for taking decisions and/or officers in charge of litigation. 12. The reluctance to take decisions, or tendency to challenge all orders against them, is not the policy of the governments or statutory authorities, but is attributable to some officers who are responsible for taking decisions and/or officers in charge of litigation. 12. Their reluctance arises from an instinctive tendency to protect themselves against any future accusations of wrong decision making, or worse, of improper motives for any decision making. Unless their insecurity and fear is addressed, officers will continue to pass on the responsibility of decision making to courts and Tribunals. The Central Government is now attempting to deal with this issue by formulating realistic and practical norms for defending cases filed against the government and for filing appeals and revisions against adverse decisions, thereby, eliminating unnecessary litigation. But, it is not sufficient if the Central Government alone undertakes such an exercise. The State Governments and the statutory authorities, who have more litigations than the Central Government, should also make genuine efforts to eliminate unnecessary litigation. Vexatious and unnecessary litigation have been clogging the wheels of justice, for too long making it difficult for courts and Tribunals to provide easy and speedy access to justice to bona fide and needy litigants. 13. In view of the judgment of the Apex court in Urban Improvement Trust (supra) the judicial trend appears to be that unreasonable contentions of the State authorities are to be ignored by the courts and they are to be treated like not only ordinary litigant but much more i.e. idle litigant but they are to be treated on higher pedestrian than the common litigant which is to be treated as idle litigant. 14. For all reasons stated above, the delay condonation application filed by the State is rejected on the ground of latches as there is no reasonable explanation for the delay. As a consequence, the appeal also stands dismissed.