JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. This appeal is preferred challenging the correctness of the judgment and order dated 29th March, 2016 passed in writ petition No. W.P.14969(W) of 2015 (Sri Goutam Kumar Dutta & anr. v. The State of West Bengal and ors.). 2. The appeal is accompanied by delay condonation application under section 5 of the Limitation Act being C.A.N. 7406 of 2016 praying for condoning the delay of 82 days in filing the memorandum of appeal against the judgment and order aforesaid and also accompanied by application for stay being C.A.N. 7427 of 2016. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and for the respondent on the application for condonation of delay. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the judgment impugned was passed on 29th March, 2016 and was communicated on 11th May, 2016 and was received by the Director of Library Services, Government of West Bengal on the same day. The file was then processed and a proposal was made to the Law Officer, Department of M.E.E. and L.S., Government of West Bengal dated 18th May, 2016 for preferring an appeal against the said order. The Law Officer of the said department submitted the file for approving the proposal before the Secretary of the Department of M.E.E. and L.S., Government of West Bengal on 1st June, 2016. The Secretary in turn, accorded his approval on 26th May, 2016 to the proposal of preferring an appeal against the order. Subsequently, the file was sent to the office of the Legal Remembrance to engage a Counsel for filing of the appeal. 5. In paragraph 5 of the delay condonation application it is submitted that approval proposal was received back by the Principal Secretary, Department of M.E.E. & L.S., Government of West Bengal on 15th June, 2016 and the Director of Library Services was communicated the file for necessary action on 16th June, 2016. The Director of Library Services communicated the matter to the District Library Officer, North 24-Parganas on the same date for necessary action. 6. It appears from the averment made in the delay condonation application that the certified copy of the impugned judgment was applied for by the District Library Officer on 20th June, 2016 and which was received by the Counsel on 22nd June, 2016 from the office of the High Court. 6. It appears from the averment made in the delay condonation application that the certified copy of the impugned judgment was applied for by the District Library Officer on 20th June, 2016 and which was received by the Counsel on 22nd June, 2016 from the office of the High Court. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant/State would argue on the aforesaid facts that delay caused was not under the control of the applicant/appellant, as such, the cause shown in the delay condonation application, as enumerated above, may be considered as sufficient for the purpose of explanation of the delay in filing of the instant appeal. He would also submit that there was no intentional delay and/or laches on the part of the authority to file the same and that there is fair chance of the success of the appeal hence unless the application for condonation of delay is allowed, the applicant/appellant would suffer an irreparable loss and injury. Apart from the separate application for condonation of delay a prayer for stay has also been made in the delay condonation application in paragraph 9 to the effect that a contempt rule has been issued in the meantime and as such the contempt proceeding be stayed until the appeal is heard by this Court. 8. Counsel for the appellant submits that normally the Court should be liberal in condoning the delay in case where public interest is involved, as observed by the Apex Court in paragraphs 10 to 13 in the case of Imrat Lal and ors. v. Land Acquisition Collector & anr., reported in (2014)14 S.C.C. 133 . In that case the Court considered an application for condonation of delay of 1110 days under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in filing the appeal in a land acquisition matter for enhancement of compensation. Paragraphs 10 to 13 reads- "10. While we agree with Shri Narendra Hooda that the averments contained in the application for condonation of delay were extremely vague and did not provide satisfactory explanation for the long delay of 1110 days, but it cannot be ignored that in identical matters the another learned Single Judge had granted relief to the landowners by enhancing the compensation and this factor should not have been overlooked by the learned Single Judge while deciding the application for condonation of delay. 11. 11. We can take judicial notice of the fact that the villagers in our country are by and large illiterate and are not conversant with the intricacies of law. They are usually guided by their co-villagers, who are familiar with the proceedings in the Courts or the advocates with whom they get in touch for redressal of their grievance. Affidavits filed in support of the applications for condonation of delay are usually drafted by the advocates on the basis of half-backed information made available by the affected persons. Therefore, in the acquisition matters involving claim for award of just compensation, the Court should adopt a liberal approach and either grant time to the party to file a better affidavit to explain delay or suo motu take cognizance of the fact that large number of other similarly situated persons who were affected by the determination of compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer or the Reference Court have been granted relief. 12. In Samiyathal v. Tahsildar decided on 5-7-2013, this Court took cognizance of the fact that many landowners may not have been able to seek intervention of this Court for grant of enhanced compensation due to illiteracy, poverty and ignorance and issued direction that those who have not filed special leave petition should be given enhanced compensation. The relevant portion of the judgment passed in that case is extracted below:- 'We further direct the respondents and the State of Tamil Nadu to pay the same amount of compensation to other landowners whose land was acquired by the Notification dated 22-5-1991, but who may have on account of ignorance, poverty and other similar handicaps, not been able to approach the Reference Court or may not have been able to contest the matter before the High Court and this Court. The needful be done in respect of other landowners within a period of six months. This direction has been given in exercise of the power vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution'. 13. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the delay in filing F.R.A. No. 5477 of 2011 by the appellants is condoned." 9. This direction has been given in exercise of the power vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution'. 13. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the delay in filing F.R.A. No. 5477 of 2011 by the appellants is condoned." 9. In another judgment reported in (2015) 3 S.C.C. 569 , Executive Officer, Antiyur Town Panchayat v. G. Arumugam (dead) by Legal Representatives, the Supreme Court held in paragraphs 3 to 5 that if there is any deliberate attempt by the Government official to defeat justice by causing delay, the Court, in view of the larger public interest, should take a lenient view in such situations, condone the delay, howsoever huge may be the delay, and have the matter decided on merits. In the said case the Court found that delay was caused only on the ground of deliberate lapses on the part of the Executive Officer of Panchayat at the relevant Panchayat. It is also noted in the judgment that the said Executive Officer was suspended by the department for the lapses and taking note of that step, a lenient view was taken which is absent in the instant case. 10. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the Apex Court in paragraph 29 of the judgment rendered in the case of Post Master General and ors. v. Living Media India Limited and Anr., reported in (2012)3 S.C.C. 563 held that it was the time that various departments of the Government, its instrumentalities and agencies should bring on record their bona fide effort to explain the time lapse causing delay. The Court in no uncertain terms observed that usual explanation due to procedural delay was not acceptable, The Government departments were vested with the obligation to the public in discharging of their duties with diligence and to condone delay should be an exception. Para 29 reads:- "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." 11. Facts in the case of Post Master General (supra) are same as in the present case. It is undisputed in this appeal that the impugned judgment and order was delivered by the learned Single Judge on 29.03.2016 in presence of the learned Counsel for the parties but its copy was not sent by the Government advocate engaged by the State. 12. Though in paragraph 2 of the delay condonation application an impression has been given as if the copy of the said judgment and order was communicated by the Government advocate for explaining the time lapsed in starting the proceeding, however, to put the record straight, it was provided to the State by the learned Advocate for the writ petitioners/respondents in this appeal. 13. We find that in the delay condonation application neither any acceptable explanation for the delay is given nor the averments therein show any bona fides or consistent effort made by the officials of the State to file appeal within the time prescribed under law. The application is devoid of any explanation as to the time utilised between the dates mentioned to explain the efforts made in pursuing the procedural steps taken by the State Government for filing the appeal within the period of limitation. 14. The Legal Remembrance had given approval for filing the appeal on 7.6.2016, but the certified copy of the judgment dated 29.03.2016 was applied only on 20.6.2016 i.e. after lapse of period of three months. Even after obtaining certified copy on 22nd June, 2016 and preparation of the appeal it was presented on 14.7.2016 with unexplained delay during this period. 15. We have been noticing as a matter of trend that legal department of the State Government is preferring appeals, as a matter of trend, barred considerable lapse of time. Even after obtaining certified copy on 22nd June, 2016 and preparation of the appeal it was presented on 14.7.2016 with unexplained delay during this period. 15. We have been noticing as a matter of trend that legal department of the State Government is preferring appeals, as a matter of trend, barred considerable lapse of time. The cases relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant for the purpose of showing that laches/delay in filing cases before the Court in fact lay a ratio against the argument advanced on behalf of the State that the file was kept pending for several months or years due to considerable degree of procedural delay should be condoned. 16. After noting paragraph 29 of the judgment in Post Master General case (supra) it was observed by the Supreme Court that "law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few." We may take a cue from it that the Government has an obligation to ensure that its officers in law department have to perform their duties with diligence to prefer the appeals/cases before the Court within the time of limitation prescribed by legislature in the various Acts, and where such limitation is not provided, the appeals are to be preferred within a reasonable period of time as interpreted by the Supreme Court. 17. We find that no explanation is given by the department much less any proper explanation for the delay except mentioning various dates on which file was handed from one person to another or was sent from one department to another.. 18. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the lethargy has crept in the law department of the State because it was sometimes given grace by the Supreme Court by condoning delay where question of public benefit was involved but now delay is being sought for the Court by the State in every case by giving certain dates, without even explain the delay/laches which may have occurred due to some exceptional circumstances. 19. 19. It was not the intention of the Apex Court in the cases cited before us to give an advantage of the alleged procedure of delay to the State to prefer a writ or appeal etc., no matter it was barred by limitation without showing reasonable or acceptable cause and the efforts of Government advocates and its officials who are entrusted with duty of doing their part with sincerity for bringing their cases before the Court with the limitation period without any undue delay or laches. 20. As noticed by their Lordships in the case of Postmaster General (supra) the parties in any case are to be treated as equal for there is equality in law for everyone before the Court. The Apex Court in its judgment aforesaid has not at all estopped the Court by laying down that the Courts cannot exercise their discretion in a matter of condonation of delay. We find that the Government advocates/officials in the instant case did not discharge their duties diligently and with commitment for preferring the appeal within the time prescribed under law, however, on the contrary they were sitting tight over the file for no reason which is now being sought to justify before us. 21. The concerned officials of Law Department of the State are not functioning properly and that most of the cases are being preferred in the Court after they barred by considerable period of time under law. This mindset of their officials is to be attended to by the Government, for it requires radical change in the functioning in so far the law department of the State is concerned. There is no indication either in the delay condonation application of this appeal or any other place as to what action has been taken against the erring officials of the Government who had not performed their duties in time. 22. For the reasons aforesaid, the delay condonation application is dismissed. As a consequence thereof, the appeal and the application for stay are also dismissed. The learned Registrar General High Court, Calcutta is accordingly directed to forward a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary Government of West Bengal by name with request to lay the same before the Chief Minister, Government of West Bengal for bringing observation of this Court and for taking remedial measures as it deem fit and proper.