ORDER : M.K. HANJURA, J. 1. The applicants – appellants have filed this application seeking the indulgence of this Court in condoning the delay of 04 years and 116 days in filing the Appeal, against the judgment and order dated 11-11-2013 of this Court, passed in SWP 2173/2013, primarily, on the grounds that immediately on the receipt of the copy of the said judgment in the month of March, 2014, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, sought opinion of the learned Advocate General (AG) vide his letter dated 19-03-2013, to find out the legal course to assail the legality of the judgment dated 11-11-2013. It is stated further that the opinion was received from the learned AG on 27-03-2014, whereafter a time bound enquiry was directed by the department and the then Conservator of Forests (CF), North Circle and the DFO, PO Division, were advised to submit the report within a week’s time. The Chief Conservator of Forests (CCF), North Circle, vide his letter dated 20-03-2015, informed the CF that the Court has nowhere commented upon the genuineness of the basic order of the appointment of the petitioner – respondent herein, and therefore, the matter to that extent be enquired into within a week’s time. The matter could not be concluded within time by the CF, North Circle, which resulted in assigning the case to the then CF, Srinagar Circle, who was appointed as Enquiry Officer (EO) vide an order dated 22-01-2016, and he was advised to conclude the enquiry within a week’s time with a further direction to give specific recommendations/remarks. It is stated that the EO could not submit the enquiry report within the prescribed period. He was again requested to do the needful, but instead of submitting the report, he made a request vide his letter dated 25-10-2016 to constitute an enquiry committee competent to delve into every detail of the matter, on the ground that the matter is very sensitive and complicated. 2. The applicants – appellants have further stated that due to the inaction of the EO supra, another Conservator of Forests, Mr. Irfan Rasool, was vested with the power to hold the enquiry into the matter and probe into the fake appointment order of the petitioner/respondent. 2. The applicants – appellants have further stated that due to the inaction of the EO supra, another Conservator of Forests, Mr. Irfan Rasool, was vested with the power to hold the enquiry into the matter and probe into the fake appointment order of the petitioner/respondent. The report was finally framed by the said EO, who submitted the same before the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, J&K. The applicants have further stated that in the meantime, the petitioner – respondent herein, initiated contempt proceedings against the applicants. 3. It is further stated in the application that the matter was taken up with the administrative department for seeking instructions and vide order dated 27-11-2017, the administrative department took up the matter with the department of Law, Justice & Parliamentary Affairs for seeking advice as to whether the remedy of the appeal can be availed or not. Ultimately the department of Law, Justice & Parliamentary Affairs decided that the appeal be filed to assail the order/judgment of the Hon’ble Court and in terms of letter dated 14-12-2017, sanction was accorded for filing of the appeal against the judgment dated 11-11-2013. In this view of the matter, the learned Senior AAG was asked to file the appeal in terms of the communication dated 22-12-2017. It is stated further that the learned Senior AAG, took his own time in examining the judgment/order and advised the department to obtain the certified copy of the judgment dated 11-11-2013 along with the entire writ record from the Registry. An application was, accordingly, moved before the Registry, from where an order was obtained, depicting that the record of the case could not be located as the same has been submerged in flood waters that inundated the valley in the month of September, 2014 and sought further time to trace out the same. It is stated further that the entire procedure consumed a lot of time and in that process delay was caused. However, it is stated that the delay has neither been deliberate nor intentional and the same is sought to be condoned because of the reasons explained in the application. In the end, it is prayed that the application, for condoning the delay in filing the appeal against the order/judgment dated 11-11-2013, passed in SWP 2173/2013, be allowed. 4. However, it is stated that the delay has neither been deliberate nor intentional and the same is sought to be condoned because of the reasons explained in the application. In the end, it is prayed that the application, for condoning the delay in filing the appeal against the order/judgment dated 11-11-2013, passed in SWP 2173/2013, be allowed. 4. The respondent has resisted and controverted the application of the Appellants, chiefly on the grounds that the appeal is sought to be filed by the applicants with mala fide and ulterior motive, aimed at absolving themselves from the clutches of contempt proceedings for non adherence to the judgment dated 11-11-2013 of this Court. It is also stated that no ground much less a reasonable one has been pleaded in the application for the condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. It is stated that the order dated 11-11-2013 of this Court was conveyed to the respondents – applicants herein, immediately after it was issued. It is further stated that the applicants are adamant to defeat the rights of the respondent – non applicant by ensuring that the benefit of the judgment of the Court is not bestowed unto him. It is stated further that after the acquittal of the respondent by the competent Court of jurisdiction, the applicants on 20-03-2015 intended to initiate departmental proceedings against him. However, no enquiry was conducted. Vide order dated 22-01-2016, a fresh enquiry was ordered to be conducted but the same did not commence. The respondent has stated further that in order to deny the benefit of the judgment dated 11-11-2013 to him and delay the disbursement of pay and other service benefits in his favour, the applicants have taken recourse to the present proceedings. The respondent has further gone to state that the appeal is sought to be filed at a highly belated stage and more than four years have elapsed from the date, the judgment dated 11-11-2013 was passed. Besides no sufficient cause or a tenable ground is projected in the application to attract the attention of the Court to condone the delay in filing the appeal. In the premises it has been prayed that the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, being legally untenable, deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard and considered. 6. Besides no sufficient cause or a tenable ground is projected in the application to attract the attention of the Court to condone the delay in filing the appeal. In the premises it has been prayed that the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, being legally untenable, deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard and considered. 6. It cannot be disputed that the Law of Limitation has to be applied with all its vigor and rigor as prescribed by the Statute. One cannot escape the consequences of section 5 of the J&K Limitation Act Samvat 1995, which provides that for the extension of the period of limitation in a given case, the condition precedent is that the applicant or the appellant has to satisfy the Court that he/she has carved out a sufficient cause in seeking the assistance of the Court for not preferring the Appeal or Application within the stipulated time. The Courts cannot come to the aid and rescue of the State where the application for condonation of delay does not spell out sufficient cause and the approach of the State, in making such application, is casual and cryptic. 7. Testing the application of the Applicants on the touch stone of the law, governing the subject, it will be profitable to quote paragraphs 7&8 of the law laid down in 2010(4) JKJ 638 (HC), herein below, in verbatim : “7. In the case P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, reported in AIR 1998 SC 2276 , the Apex Court, at paragraph 6 ruled as under: “Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigor when the statute so prescribe and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The discretion exercised by the High Court was, thus, neither proper nor judicious. The order condoning the delay cannot be sustained. This appeal, therefore, succeeds and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay filed in the High Court would stand rejected and the Miscellaneous First Appeal shall stand dismissed as barred by time. No costs.” 8. In another case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while deliberating upon the question of condonation of an inordinate delay of 264 days on an application preferred by the Government, has observed as under: “2. No costs.” 8. In another case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while deliberating upon the question of condonation of an inordinate delay of 264 days on an application preferred by the Government, has observed as under: “2. This special leave petition filed on November 16, 1993 is delayed by 264 days. For quite some time in the past this Court has been making observations as to the grave prejudice caused to public interest by appeals brought on behalf of the Government being lost on the point of limitation. Such observations have been made for over a few years in the past. But there seems to be no conspicuous improvement as is apparent in the present petition which is filed in November 1993. The explanation for the delay, had better bet set out in petitioner’s own words: …………………………………… …………………………………… 3. This explanation is incapable of furnishing a judicially acceptable ground for condonation of delay. After the earlier observations of this Court made in several cases in the past, we hoped that the matters might improve. There seems to be no visible support of this optimism. There is a point beyond which even the courts cannot help a litigant even if the litigant is Government which is itself under the shackles of bureaucratic indifference. Having regard to the law of limitation which binds everybody, we cannot find any way of granting relief. It is true that Government should not be treated as any other private litigant, as indeed, in the case of the former the decisions to present and prosecute appeals are not individual but are institutional decisions necessarily bogged down by the proverbial red-tape. But there are limits to this also. Even with all this latitude, the explanation offered for the delay in this case merely serves to aggravate the attitude of indifference of the Revenue in protecting its common Interests. The affidavit is again one of the stereotyped affidavits making it susceptible to the criticism that the Revenue does not seem to attach any importance to the need for promptitude even where it affects its own interest.” 8. Applying the ratio of the law laid down above to the instant case, there has been a reckless delay of 04 years and 116 days in filing the LPA and no satisfactory explanation has come forward on that count except for routine words and phrases. Applying the ratio of the law laid down above to the instant case, there has been a reckless delay of 04 years and 116 days in filing the LPA and no satisfactory explanation has come forward on that count except for routine words and phrases. No doubt, a liberal approach has to be adopted in the matter of condonation of delay when there is no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides on the part of the State but in the instant case the applicants - appellants took their own time to file the LPA. The law laid down in AIR 2011 SC 1237 enunciates this principle and it lays down as follows : “……..3. This appeal emanates from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Guahati High Court (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) in Misc. Case No. 1569 of 2007 in W.A.No. 72020 of 2006. The appeal filed by the Union of India was dismissed by the High Court because of inordinate delay of 239 days. The Division Bench of the High Court, while dismissing the appeal, has observed as under : “We have gone through the contents of the petition. The delay occurred because of the respondents took their own sweet time to reach the conclusion whether the judgment should be appealed or not. It is not that they were prevented by any reason which is beyond their control to take such a decision in time. Even otherwise, on merits of the case also it does not appear to have any tenable ground of appeal. In the circumstances, we do not see any merits in this petition.” 4. We have also gone through the condonation of delay application which was filed in the High Court. In our considered view, the High Court was fully justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay because no sufficient cause was shown for condoning the delay. ……………….. 6. The Union of India ought to have been careful particularly in filing this Civil Appeal because the Division Bench, by the impugned order, has dismissed the appeal before it on the ground of delay. ……………….. 6. The Union of India ought to have been careful particularly in filing this Civil Appeal because the Division Bench, by the impugned order, has dismissed the appeal before it on the ground of delay. It is a matter of deep anguish and distress that majority of the matters filed by the Union of India are hopelessly barred by limitation and no satisfactory explanations exist for condoning inordinate delay in filing those cases.” 9. Resort can also be had to an elaborate and a lucid judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, reported in (2013) 12 SCC 649 , the relevant excerpts of which are as under : “………..21.2. (ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-situation. 21.9. (ix) The conduct, behavior and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. 21.10. (x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation. ……………… 21.12. (xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. 21.13. (xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude. 22.1 (a) An application for condonation of delay should be drafted with careful concern and not in a haphazard manner harboring the notion that the courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system. ……………….. 31. Neither leisure nor pleasure has any room while one moves an application seeking condonation of delay of almost seven years on the ground of lack of knowledge or failure of justice.” 10. ……………….. 31. Neither leisure nor pleasure has any room while one moves an application seeking condonation of delay of almost seven years on the ground of lack of knowledge or failure of justice.” 10. Risking repetition, what is stated here is that the State has been negligent in prosecuting its claim within time and the application appears to have been drafted recklessly without giving a proper account as to why such a delay was allowed to happen. The sequence of the events followed by the dates that prompted the State to file the appeal after a long delay had to be accounted for to satisfy the Court that the delay in lodging of appeal was neither willful nor deliberate. This has not been done. The application projects a pretty dismal account. The dates and events portrayed in it reflect that the matter has been dealt with freedom and ease. Delay cannot be condoned on a mere asking. The principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to the judicial dispensation system cannot form the base line of condoning delay. If it shall be interpreted in that context then the Limitation Act has to be wiped off from the Statute. 11. Testing the application of the State from another perspective. What can be said is that the State has become wise after the event. The instant application has been filed after the contempt proceedings were initiated by the respondent herein against the State. What can be said under the circumstances is that the application of the applicant is a camouflage devised by the State to scuttle the contempt proceedings initiated by the respondent against it. The State has, by taking resort to these proceedings, tried to hoodwink the process of law initiated against it for seeking the implementation of the order of this Court. 12. Viewed in the context of what has been said and done above, we are of the considered opinion that the State has failed to explain the delay of 04 years & 116 days in filing the Appeal. Consequently, the application for Condonation of Delay, in filing the Appeal, is rejected and the Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) shall stand dismissed as barred by time.