JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned standing counsel for the appellant on the question of condonation of delay and perused the record. 2. This FAFO is reported to be beyond time by 52 days. The appellant has moved an application supported with affidavit under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay. The explanation for delay as averred in the affidavit, is that information regarding impugned judgment and award dated 28.8.2012 was given by the D.G.C. (civil), Bulandshahr on 21.9.2012 to Assistant Commissioner, (Sachaldal), Bulandshahr, who on 25.9.2012 wrote a letter to the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Lucknow for granting permission to file the appeal and for allotment of Rs. 25,000/- towards statutory deposit. Thereafter, reminders are also said to have been given in this regard on 31.10.2012 and 5.11.2012. It is stated that permission to file case was given by the State Government by letter dated 11.12.2012; that it was found by the standing counsel that permission granted by the Government was for filing a writ petition and not First Appeal From Order, so the standing counsel on 3.1.2013 had written a letter for correction in the permission granted by the State Government; that thereafter vide letter dated 16.1.2013 issued by Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P., Lucknow, permission was given to file First Appeal which is not maintainable against the impugned award, therefore, again a letter dated 18.1.2013 was sent by the standing counsel for correction of the permission and ultimately the permission for filing FAFO was granted by the State Government by letter dated 29.1.2013. Copies of the aforesaid correspondence have also been appended with the delay condonation application 3. It is submitted by the standing counsel appearing for the appellant that delay caused is neither intentional nor deliberate, but has occasioned due to the facts and circumstances stated above which is procedural involving Government machinery. Copies of the aforesaid correspondence have also been appended with the delay condonation application 3. It is submitted by the standing counsel appearing for the appellant that delay caused is neither intentional nor deliberate, but has occasioned due to the facts and circumstances stated above which is procedural involving Government machinery. Relying upon the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, Kerala v. K.V. Ayisumma, (1996) 10 SCC 634 ), National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Giga Ram and others, (2002) 10 SCC-176), State of Rajasthan v. Chanda alias Chandkori and others, (2007) 11 SCC 402 , State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and others, (1996) 3 SCC 132 ), State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaan, (2008) 14 SCC 582 and State of Nagaland v. Lipokao and others, (2005) 3 SCC 752 ), learned counsel for the appellant has urged that for the reasons stated in the delay condonation application, sufficient grounds have been made out for condoning the delay and the Court is empowered to condone the delay in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 4. Condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the Court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable for want of sufficient cause whereas in certain other cases delay of a very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. 5. In the present case, the impugned judgment and award was passed by the Tribunal on 28.8.2012, regarding which information was given by the DGC on 21.9.2012 to the department. Thereafter, the file travelled from one table to another for permission to challenge the award and allocation of fund and as averred in the affidavit, initially permission was granted for filing writ petition, thereafter for First Appeal which was not maintainable and ultimately for the present FAFO. The appellants are a department headed by senior administrative officers of the State having well equipped legal cell as also battery of competent lawyers. The appellants are a department headed by senior administrative officers of the State having well equipped legal cell as also battery of competent lawyers. It is unfortunate that officers of the appellants could not decide within the specified period of limitation whether a writ petition is to be instituted or First Appeal or First Appeal From Order is to be filed. 6. In an identical matter, in Second Appeal (Defective) No 250 of 2010, State of U.P. Through Collector, Azamgarh v. Keshav Murari Rai, decided on 3.7.2010, this Court held thus : “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 Government Counsels in lower judiciary, Standing Counsels in High Courts and Government 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 bay for all times to come till the State Government or its officers wake from their slumber. It is not expected to a Government 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 rights of successful party cannot be kept at bay for all times to come till the State Government or its officers wake from their slumber. It is not expected to a Government 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 and Chief Secretary to the Government 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. The Courts cannot humour the State Government by casually condoning delay in approaching the seat of justice. Everyone, whether State or a citizen is equal in the eyes of law.” Power to condone delay has been conferred upon the Courts to enable them to do substantial justice to the parties. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice, deserves to be preferred. Further, it is a general principle of law that law is made to protect only diligent and vigilant people. Equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent. Law will not protect people who are careless about their rights. Moreover, there should be certainty in law and matters cannot be kept in suspense indefinitely. 7. In the present case, claimant respondents are wife and children of deceased Ganga Prasad Mishra, who succumbed to the injuries sustained in an accident dated 29.12.2002. Claim petition was filed by them in the year 2004 and the impugned judgment and award has come after about eight years i.e. on 28.8.2012. The present appeal has been filed with delay of about two months. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal position as stated above, it is apparent that officers of the appellant have failed to take decision within the prescribed period of limitation to challenge the impugned award and in our considered view, the cause shown is also not sufficient for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. For all the aforesaid reasons, the delay condonation application is rejected. As a consequence of it, the appeal also stands dismissed as barred by limitation. Let amount of statutory deposit made by the appellant in this Court be remitted by the registry to the Tribunal concerned within three weeks for adjustment. ——————