JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This intra Court appeal has been preferred before Division Bench of this Court on 21st November, 2012, against order dated 5th July, 2004 passed by the Single Bench. 3. Registry has pointed out that appeal is barred by 3001 days. Initially, application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not filed by the appellant. However, it was filed subsequently, wherein, the appellant has tried to explain the delay stating that he is about 79 years of age. He was not informed by his counsel about dismissal of the writ petition, which was dismissed in limine on first day of hearing. It is also stated that in second week of September, 2011, the appellant came to know about dismissal of the writ petition by some persons of his village, then, on enquiry, he found that his writ petition has already been dismissed way back in the year 2004. Thereafter, he contacted his counsel and applied for certified copy of the order and on 17th October, 2011, got the same. He, thereafter, met his counsel in October, 2011 and requested him to file an appeal, but due to sudden paralysis attack, he could not come to Jodhpur to sign the documents. Thereafter, he contacted his counsel in October, 2012 and filed this appeal on 21st November, 2012. 4. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and the reasons mentioned in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 3001 days. 5. From the averments made in the application, it is clear that firstly, the appellant has tried to explain that he was not informed by his counsel about dismissal of the writ petition in 200t seven years continuously from 2004 to 2014. However, he has not mentioned as to why he did not contact his counsel for abou1. He has also not explained as to who informed him in September, 2011, about dismissal of the writ petition. The appellant has further stated that he contacted his counsel in October, 2011 and thereafter he suffered with paralysis attack and he, again, contacted his counsel in October, 2012. However, the appellant has not annexed a single document to show that he suffered with this ailment. The appellant has further stated that he contacted his counsel in October, 2011 and thereafter he suffered with paralysis attack and he, again, contacted his counsel in October, 2012. However, the appellant has not annexed a single document to show that he suffered with this ailment. Neither any certificate of the doctor nor other evidence, as to from which date he suffered with this ailment, has been placed on record. Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been drafted in a cursory manner. No reasonable explanation, at all, has been given by the appellant for the period from 2004 to 2011 in any manner whatsoever, except that he was not informed by his counsel, which does not appear to be correct. He has also not filed any affidavit of his counsel to that effect. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the appellant has failed to explain the delay of 3001 days in filing the appeal and delay cannot be condoned in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Postmaster General and Others v. Living Media India Limited and Another, (2012) 3 SCC 563 . considered its number of judgments and refused to condone the delay of 427 days, even to Government Department. It was also held that condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as anticipated benefit for Government Departments. Paragraphs 22 to 24 and 28 to 30 of the judgment read thus: "22. In CWT v. Amateur Riders Club, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 603. there was a delay of 264 days in filing the SLP by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Bombay. The explanation for the delay had been set out in the petitioner's own words as under: (SCC p. 604, para 2) "2....(g) The Advocate-on-Record got the special leave petition drafted from the drafting Advocate and sent the same for approval to the Board on 24-6-1993 along with the case file. (h) The Board returned the case file to the Advocate-on-Record on 9-7-1993 who re-sent the same to the Board on 20-9-1993 requesting that draft SLP was not approved by the Board. The Board after approving the draft SLP sent this file to CAS on 1-10-1993." After incorporating the above explanation, this Court refused to condone the delay by observing thus:(SCC p. 604 para 3) "3. .... The Board after approving the draft SLP sent this file to CAS on 1-10-1993." After incorporating the above explanation, this Court refused to condone the delay by observing thus:(SCC p. 604 para 3) "3. .... Having regard to the law of limitation which binds everybody, we cannot find any way of granting relief. It is true that the Government should not be treated as any other private litigant as, indeed, in the case of the former the decisions to present and prosecute appeals are not individual but are institutional decisions necessarily bogged down by the proverbial red tape. But there are limits to this also. Even with all this latitude, the explanation offered for the delay in this case merely serves to aggravate the attitude of indifference of the Revenue in protecting its common interests. The affidavit is again one of the stereotyped affidavits making it susceptible to the criticism that the Revenue does not seem to attach any importance to the need for promptitude even where it affects its own interest. (emphasis supplied) 23. In Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448 . the question was whether the respondent Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project had shown sufficient cause to condone the delay of 1724 days in filing appeals before the High Court. In para 17, this Court held:(SCC p. 455) "17. .... The evidence on record suggests neglect of its own right for long time in preferring appeals. The court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The court helps those who are vigilant and 'do not slumber over their rights'." 24. After referring various earlier decisions, taking very lenient view in condoning the delay, particularly, on the part of the Government and the Government undertaking, this Court observed as under:(Pundlik Jalam case, SCC pp. 457-58, paras 29-30) "29. It needs no restatement at our hands that the object for fixing time-limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing a life span for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his Jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy. 30. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his Jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy. 30. Public interest undoubtedly is a paramount consideration in exercising the court's discretion wherever conferred upon it by the relevant statutes. Pursuing stale claims and multiplicity of proceedings in no manner subserves public interest. Prompt and timely payment of compensation to the landlosers facilitating their rehabilitation/resettlement is equally an integral part of public policy. Public interest demands that the State or the beneficiary of acquisition, as the case may be, should not be allowed to indulge in any act to unsettle the settled legal rights accrued in law by resorting to avoidable litigation unless the claimants are guilty of deriving benefit to which they are otherwise not entitled, in any fraudulent manner. One should not forget the basic fact that what is acquired is not the land but the livelihood of the landlosers. These public interest parameters ought to be kept in mind by the courts while exercising the discretion dealing with the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Dragging the landlosers to courts of law years after the termination of legal proceedings would not serve any public interest. Settled rights cannot be lightly interfered with by condoning inordinate delay without there being any proper explanation of such delay on the ground of involvement of public revenue. It serves no public interest." "28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government. 29. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government. 29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all Government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The Government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the Government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. 30. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay." 7. In view of above discussion, we are of the view that no sufficient cause is made out, so as to condone the delay of 3001 days in filing the appeal. Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is, accordingly, dismissed. 8. Consequently, intra Court appeal is dismissed. Stay application also stands dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******