ORDER 1. This intra Court appeal is directed against the order dated 29.6.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.5163/2007. 2. The appeal is barred by 342 days. 3. The appellant / State has filed IA No.11323/2009, an application seeking condonation of the said delay of 342 days. 4. We find that following is the explanation offered in the application for condonation of delay : - “2. That the said petition was decided on 29.7.2008 and subsequently applied for the certified copy on 30.7.2008, the certified copy of the order was received by the OIC of the case on 1.11.2008 and thereafter the department processed the case of the respondent No.1 in SLC meeting on 23.10.2008 and thereafter the Central Government has refused to grant the same benefit to the petitioner thus the Department sought the opinion of the Government Advocate. The opinion was received vide letter dated 28.10.2009 and thereafter the Officer-in-Charge of the case sent the case of the respondent along with the opinion to the higher authorities at Bhopal for seeking the necessary sanction to file the writ appeal. Thereafter, the Law Department granted permission to file writ appeal in the matter on 8.12.2009 and Officer-in-Charge of the case received the said permission through proper channel on the very day. 4. That after receiving the permission from the Law Department by the OIC, the Officer-in-Charge of the case collected the record of the case and contacted to the Advocate General Office for writ appeal, where record of the case was perused and appeal was drafted without any further delay. It is most humbly the delay of 468 days is caused due to official procedure and legal formalities, which is bona fide and deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice.” 5. Having gone through the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that no case for condonation of delay is made out. 6. The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd. AIR 2012 SC 1506 is directly on the point. Having gone through the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that no case for condonation of delay is made out. 6. The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd. AIR 2012 SC 1506 is directly on the point. In this case, there was a delay of 427 days in filing the appeal before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court and the certified copy of the High Court judgment was applied after four months with no explanation why it was not applied for within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court, after examining other dates mentioned in the affidavit of the person-incharge of the case to justify the delay found that there was delay at every stage with no explanation for the cause of delay. The Supreme Court also took serious note of the casual manner in which the Government departments are functioning showing virtually no respect to the law of limitation. And, while dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay, the Supreme Court has made the following observation : “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. 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.” 7. The aforesaid view has again been affirmed by the Supreme Court in case of State of Uttar Pradesh v.Amar Nath Yadav [ (2014) 2 SCC 422 ]. 8. In the result, the application for condonation of delay deserves to be and is hereby rejected. 9. The aforesaid view has again been affirmed by the Supreme Court in case of State of Uttar Pradesh v.Amar Nath Yadav [ (2014) 2 SCC 422 ]. 8. In the result, the application for condonation of delay deserves to be and is hereby rejected. 9. However, we have also gone through the merits of the matter and we find that the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition has placed reliance on a judgment dated 3.5.2007 passed in the case of M/s. Agrawal Carbon Ribbon Private Limited v. Union of India & others, Writ Petition No.330/2001. 10. It has not been disputed by the learned Deputy Government Advocate that the judgment passed in the case of M/s. Agrawal Carbon Ribbon Pvt. Limited (supra) has attained finality, as it was not challenged further by the State. 11. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that no case for interference on merits is also made out. Thus, the writ appeal is dismissed on the ground of limitation as also on merits.