ORDER G. Rohini, J. 1. W.A.M.P. No. 2227 of 2011 is filed to condone the delay of 291 days in filing the Writ Appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.12.2010 in W.P. No. 26911 of 2010. The State is the appellant in the main appeal. By the order under appeal the learned Single Judge allowed W.P. No. 26911/2010 filed by the respondents 1 to 4 herein aggrieved by the non-implementation of the settlement Patta granted by the Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Chittoor on 22.12.1980 which was confirmed by the Director of Settlements, the Commissioner of Appeals and also by this Court, and directed the appellants herein to implement the settlement Patta by mutating the name of the writ petitioners in the revenue record and issuing Pattadar passbook and title deeds. 2. The main appeal is filed against the said order with a delay of 291 days. The District Collector, Chittoor, representing the State filed the affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay, and the only explanation offered by him for the delay is as under: Para 7. I respectfully submit that the writ petition was disposed of on 29.12.2010. The copy of the order was received on 10.02.2011. Thereafter, the Collector, Chittoor addressed the Government seeking permission for filing the writ appeal on 02.03.2011. The Government accorded permission for filing the writ appeal vide Memo No. 11287/JA(2)/2011 dated 21.10.2010 (sic. 2011). Immediately the Advocate General was requested to take steps for filing the writ appeal. The Advocate General prepared the grounds of writ appeal and affidavits and the same were filed into the Court. Thus there is a delay in filing the writ appeal. The delay is neither willful nor wanton, but for the reasons stated above and therefore I tender my unconditional apologies for the delay and if the delay is not condoned the Government would lose its valuable land. 3. The respondents/writ petitioners filed counter affidavits opposing the condonation of delay. 4. We have, heard the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners/appellants, and Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, and perused the material available on record. 5. 3. The respondents/writ petitioners filed counter affidavits opposing the condonation of delay. 4. We have, heard the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners/appellants, and Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, and perused the material available on record. 5. It is no doubt true that the discretion conferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay shall be exercised liberally to advance substantial justice to the parties and to decide the dispute on merits. However, the law is well settled that where the delay is on account of gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, sufficient cause cannot be said to be made out within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 6. In the instant case, a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay reflects the casualness and indifference in the approach of the petitioners/appellants in availing the remedy of appeal. The explanation is not only vague, but also not convincing. In fact, it is manifest from the tenor of the affidavit that the delay is on account of negligence and deliberate inaction on the part of the petitioners/appellants, but not on account of any unavoidable administrative delay. As per their own version the Government accorded permission for filing the writ appeal after a period of more than seven months, and there is no explanation as to why such delay has occasioned. 7. As held in Office of The Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd. (1) AIR 2012 SC 1506 : (2012) 3 SCC : 2012 (5) ALT 41.3 (DN SC) : 563 2012 (3) SCJ 873 the law of limitation binds everybody including the Government and therefore in the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation there is no reason to condone the delay mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party. While strongly deprecating the, approach of the Government bodies in seeking condonation of delay offering vague and routine explanations, it is observed by the Apex Court in Office of The Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Limited (supra). 13. While strongly deprecating the, approach of the Government bodies in seeking condonation of delay offering vague and routine explanations, it is observed by the Apex Court in Office of The Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Limited (supra). 13. 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 government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. 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. 8. In the light of the legal position noticed above, we are unable to accept the explanation offered in the present case for condonation of delay. In our considered opinion there was no bona fide effort on the part of the petitioners/appellants to avail the remedy of appeal within the period of limitation. 9. Therefore, W.A.M.P. No. 2227 of 2011 is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal shall also stand dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.