ORDER Heard both sides. 2. This application is filed to condone the delay of 1664 days in preferring the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2003 in OP No.1594 of 2000 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-1st Additional District Judge, Visakahapatnam. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of this application, it is contended that the judgment of the Tribunal was pronounced on 24.11.2003; the application for certified copies of the said judgment was filed on 22.8.2008; stamps were collected on 22.8.2008 and were deposited on the same date; the judgment was made ready on 29.8.2008 and thereafter, the appeal was preferred on 7.9.2008. It is also stated that this case is connected with CMA (SR) 39065 of 2004 and CMA (SR) No.39066 of 2004 and both the C.M.As are still pending on the file of this Court; that by over sight, the Counsel did not apply for copy in the OP No.1594 of 2000; that in a similar situation in Wadhya Mal v. Prem Chand Jain and another, AIR 1982 SC 18 , the Supreme Court has condoned the delay in preferring the appeal, when connected appeals were pending. 4. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents 1 and 2, it is stated that the order in OP No.1594 of 2000 was passed on 24.11.2003 by the Tribunal; five years thereafter, the present appeal was filed, that too after the execution petition was filed before the Tribunal by the respondents 1 and 2; that if the delay is condoned, the respondents 1 and 2 would suffer irreparable loss and injury. 5. I have noted the submissions of both sides. 6. Admittedly, the judgment in the O.P. was pronounced on 24.11.2003 by the Tribunal. No steps were taken to file the copy application till 22.8.2008. Thus, almost five years later the copy application is filed. 7. In Postmaster General and others v. Living Media India Limited and another, (2012) 3 SCC 563 , also, the judgment was pronounced by the High Court on 11.9.2009. But, the copy application was filed on 8.1.2010 after a period of nearly four months. The Supreme Court held: "27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. But, the copy application was filed on 8.1.2010 after a period of nearly four months. The Supreme Court held: "27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with Court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. 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. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the 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." 8. Except stating that there is over sight by the Counsel in applying for certified copy, no other reason is furnished. I am of the opinion that the petitioner/appellant cannot throw blame on the Counsel as it has adequate number of staff to follow-up the proceedings in the event of adverse judgment being passed by the Tribunal. Except stating that there is over sight by the Counsel in applying for certified copy, no other reason is furnished. I am of the opinion that the petitioner/appellant cannot throw blame on the Counsel as it has adequate number of staff to follow-up the proceedings in the event of adverse judgment being passed by the Tribunal. More particularly, when according to it there were two other connected matters CMA (SR) Nos.39065 and 39066 of 2004, it is clear that the petitioner and its officials were negligent in taking steps to challenge the judgment dated 24.11.2003 in OP No.1594 of 2000. As regards the decision in Wadhya Mal's case (supra), cited by the Counsel for the petitioner, no doubt in the said case, the Supreme Court condoned the delay on the ground that the same award was challenged in two other appeals before the High Court, which were pending. But that was not a case where there was such an inordinate delay of five years in making application for certified copy of the judgment passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, merely because the connected appeals were pending on the file of the High Court, in every case the delay in preferring the appeal cannot be condoned. Therefore, I do not find any merits in this application. 9. Accordingly, the MACMA MP No.6721 of 2008 is dismissed. Consequently the MACMA (SR) No.40467 of 2008 stands dismissed. No costs. 10. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this M.A.C.M.A (SR) shall stand closed.