ORDER : ANANT S. DAVE, J. 1. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for applicant – State authorities and Mr. Mithil Mehta, learned counsel for the private respondents. 2. The applicants – State authorities have filed this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with a prayer to condone delay of 1734 days caused in preferring Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 22.04.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.16770 of 2013. 3. From a bare perusal of the application, it clearly appears that there is a grave negligence and lethargic approach on the part of the authorities throughout the proceedings viz. from the inception of initiating proceedings by the Mamlatdar-ALT after a period of 11 years under Section 84C of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 for breach of Section 43 of the Tenancy Act and the order of forfeiture was passed after availing remedies of appeal and revision, and ultimately the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal passed order in favour of the auction purchasers which was challenged after a period of about 7 years, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground of inordinate delay in initiating initial proceedings and filing writ petition after a period of 7 years. 4. Be that as it may, but grounds mentioned in this application reveal action taken by authorities of forwarding the proposal to file Letters Patent Appeal before this Court and in turn initially upon receiving certified copy on 11.06.2014 by the office of the Collector after a period of 3 months the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Surat sent proposal for preferring Letters Patent Appeal which again remained for 8 months without any instructions. Further, by communication dated 11.02.2015, the Revenue Department of State of Gujarat sought opinion of the Government Pleader, High Court of Gujarat along with certified copy and papers and after about 1 years and 2 months concerned Mamlatdar transferred all case papers to the office of the deponent viz. incharge, Mamlatdar of Agricultural Land Tribunal, Choryasi. Further, by communication dated 11.02.2015, the Revenue Department of State of Gujarat sought opinion of the Government Pleader, High Court of Gujarat along with certified copy and papers and after about 1 years and 2 months concerned Mamlatdar transferred all case papers to the office of the deponent viz. incharge, Mamlatdar of Agricultural Land Tribunal, Choryasi. Again, clarification was sought by Revenue Department which was further forwarded by the office of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms to Deputy Collector, City Prant, Surat and in turn it has taken further 3 months and the above rigmarole repeated till instructions were received by Legal Department, Gandhinagar to prefer appeal to the office of the Government Pleader, High Court of Gujarat on 02.11.2018. The matter did not rest at this stage, but once again communication was addressed by Revenue Department on 20.11.2018 instructing the concerned Collector, Surat District, to contact office of the Government Pleader to prefer Letters Patent Appeal and finally upon receipt of complete set of required papers, Letters Patent Appeal is filed. 5. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of [1] Office of the Chief Post Master General and Others v. Living Media India Limited and Another reported in 2012 (1) GLH 670 (SC), [2] Basawaraj and Others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81 ; and [3] State of Uttar Pradesh through Executive Engineer and Another v. Amar Nath Yadav reported in (2014) 2 SCC 422 , we find no ground much less sufficient ground to condone inordinate delay in filing the appeal. 5.1 The Apex Court in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master General [supra], observed as under:- “12. 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. 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. 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 fide, 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. 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.” 5.2 In the case of Basawaraj [supra], the Apex Court observed as under: “15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.” 6. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh through Executive Engineer [supra], the Apex Court followed its earlier decision in the case of Office of the Postmaster General (supra) and after relying upon the observations made therein, deprecated the practice on the part of the government authorities / departments and refused to condone the delay of 481 days in filing Special Leave Petition. 7. In view of above and on perusal of grounds stated in the application and submissions made by learned advocate for the applicants, we find that except the movement of file from the office of the Government Pleader to the concerned department, resolution by the Legal Department, papers were not taken for prompt processing and files remained for moths together. No doubt, explanation for everyday may not be necessary but what is held by the Apex Court in the cases of Office of the Chief Post Master General (supra) and Basawaraj and Others (supra), negligence and inaction on the part of the department of the Government, galore on record and, accordingly, in view of totality of circumstances and explanation for delay rendered, we are not satisfied and in absence of any sufficient cause, we find that this application is bereft of merits and does not deserve any consideration. Hence, this application is dismissed. Consequently, registration of the Letters Patent Appeal is refused.