JUDGMENT : 1. There is a delay of 859 days in filing the appeal. 2. Learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that I.A.1/2019 has been filed seeking condonation of delay. The said application is supported by an affidavit of the Assistant Inspector General of Registration (Law), Office of the Inspector General of Registration and Commissioner of Stamps, Bengaluru. She submitted that the delay has occurred due to bonafide and unintentional reasons and the same may be condoned as the appellant/State has a good case on merits. She further submitted that the appeal concerns an issue regarding refund of alleged excess stamp duty said to have been paid by the respondents and therefore, touches upon the State exchequer and hence, the application seeking condonation of delay may be considered liberally. 3. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned Additional Government Advocate drew our attention to the affidavit of Sri B.S.Sridhar, Assistant Inspector General of Registration (Law). 4. We have perused the said affidavit. Paragraphs 3 to 6 of the affidavit read as under: “3. I humbly submit that the order of the learned Single Judge dated:06.06.2017 where immediate efforts were taken in order to check out the legality and as per the opinion of the Law Officer of the Advocate General office an also Department of Stamp and Registration allotment side, Law Department, of Government of Karnataka have expressed an opinion that there is a violation of non-consideration of the enactment and also there was no sufficient opportunity was given in order to file the objection. Accordingly, the correspondence which are required under the due process which has consumed certain bonafides times as not to arrive at the conclusion that an appeal is to be filed. 4. I submit that the due process of law has to be followed in considering the decision of the Government to file an appeal. The said delay as on account of administrative reasons and of the correspondence which are generally required time in processing to file an appeal. 5. I respectfully submit that the decision of filing an appeal was taken in various levels by moving the file from table to table, consumed considerable time, causing delay. 6. I submit that the delay in filing the above Appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional one, but for the bonafide reasons, stated above.” 5. 5. I respectfully submit that the decision of filing an appeal was taken in various levels by moving the file from table to table, consumed considerable time, causing delay. 6. I submit that the delay in filing the above Appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional one, but for the bonafide reasons, stated above.” 5. On a reading of the same, we note that the impugned order was passed on 06.06.2017, but the appeal was filed only on 12.11.2019, there being a delay of 859 days in filing the appeal. 6. On reading of the explanation offered, we find that the same is vague and bereft of any details and is bald. No reason, let alone, any bonafide reason, has been stated by the State in support of the said application. 7. In this regard, it would be useful to refer to the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of condonation of delay in filing the appeals belatedly by the State: (a) State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bheru Lal - (2020) 10 SCC 654 :-The relevant paragraphs are extracted as under: "5. A preposterous proposition is sought to be propounded that if there is some merit in the case, the period of delay is to be given a go-by. If a case is good on merits, it will succeed in any case. It is really a bar of limitation which can even shut out good cases. This does not, of course, take away the jurisdiction of the Court in an appropriate case to condone the delay. xxx 7. We are thus, constrained to send a signal and we propose to do in all matters today, where there are such inordinate delays that the Government or State authorities coming before us must pay for wastage of judicial time which has its own value. Such costs can be recovered from the officers responsible." (b) The State of Odisha Vs. Sunanda Mahakuda -[SLP [C] Diary No.22605/2020 decided on 11.01.2021]:-The relevant extract reads as under: “There is no doubt that these are cases including the present one where the Government machinery has acted in a inefficient manner or it is a deliberate endeavour. In either of the two situations, this court ought not to come to the rescue of the petitioner. Sunanda Mahakuda -[SLP [C] Diary No.22605/2020 decided on 11.01.2021]:-The relevant extract reads as under: “There is no doubt that these are cases including the present one where the Government machinery has acted in a inefficient manner or it is a deliberate endeavour. In either of the two situations, this court ought not to come to the rescue of the petitioner. No doubt, some leeway is given for Government inefficiency but with the technological advancement now the judicial view prevalent earlier when such facilities were not available has been over taken by the elucidation of the legal principles in the judgment of this Court in the office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. V. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. – (2012) 3 SCC 563 . We have discussed these aspects in SLP [C] Diary No.9217/2020, State of Madhya Pradesh V. Bheru Lal decided on 15.10.2020 and thus, see no reason to repeat the same again. In the present case, the State Government has not even taken the trouble of citing any reason or excuse nor any dates given in respect of the period for which condonation is sought. The objective of such an exercise has also been elucidated by us in the aforesaid judgment where we have categorized such cases as “certificate cases”. The object of such cases appears to be to obtain a certificate of dismissal from the Supreme Court to put a quietus to the issue and thus, say nothing could done because the highest Court has dismissed the appeal. It is mere completion of formality to give a quietus to the litigation and save the skin of the officers who may be at fault by not taking action in prescribed time. If the State Government feels that they have suffered losses, then it must fix responsibility on concerned officers for their inaction but the ironically never happens. These matters are preferred on a presumption as if this Court will condone the delay in every case, if the State Government is able to say something on merits.” (c) Office of the Chief Post Master General Vs. Living Media India Limited – (2012) 3 SCC 563 :-In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined as follows: “27. These matters are preferred on a presumption as if this Court will condone the delay in every case, if the State Government is able to say something on merits.” (c) Office of the Chief Post Master General Vs. Living Media India Limited – (2012) 3 SCC 563 :-In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined as follows: “27. 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. 28. 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 fides, 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.” 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. 30. 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. 30. 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.” (d). Paragraphs 5 & 6 of the judgment in Union of India Vs. Central Tibetan Schools Admin and Others – 2021 SCC Online SC 119 read as under: “5. We have repeatedly being counseling through our orders various Government departments, State Governments and other public authorities that they must learn to file appeals in time and set their house in order so far as the legal department is concerned, more so as technology assists them. This appears to be falling on deaf ears despite costs having been imposed in number of matters with the direction to recover it from the officers responsible for the delay as we are of the view that these officers must be made accountable. It has not had any salutary effect and that the present matter should have been brought up, really takes the cake! 6. The aforesaid itself shows the casual manner in which the petitioner has approached this Court without any cogent or plausible ground for condonation of delay. In fact, other than the lethargy and incompetence of the petitioner, there is nothing which has been put on record. We have repeatedly discouraged State Governments and public authorities in adopting an approach that they can walk in to the Supreme Court as and when they please ignoring the period of limitation prescribed by the Statutes, as if the Limitation statute does not apply to them. In this behalf, suffice to refer to our judgment in the State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bheru Lal [SLP [C] Diary No. 9217/2020 decided on 15.10.2020] and The State of Odisha V. Sunanda Mahakuda [SLP [C] Diary No.22605/2020 decided on 11.01.2021]. In this behalf, suffice to refer to our judgment in the State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bheru Lal [SLP [C] Diary No. 9217/2020 decided on 15.10.2020] and The State of Odisha V. Sunanda Mahakuda [SLP [C] Diary No.22605/2020 decided on 11.01.2021]. The leeway which was given to the Government/public authorities on account of innate inefficiencies was the result of certain orders of this Court which came at a time when technology had not advanced and thus, greater indulgence was shown. This position is no more prevalent and the current legal position has been elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd. – (2012) 3 SCC 563 . Despite this, there seems to be a little change in the approach of the Government and public authorities.” 8. Hence, we find that there being no explanation whatsoever sufficient in law to condone the long delay of 859 days in filing the appeal, I.A.1/2019 is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also liable to be dismissed. 9. Even otherwise, we have heard the learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1 on the merits of the matter and we find that having regard to Section 16 read with Section 44(2) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 read with Rule 18 of the Karnataka Stamp Rules, 1958, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed even on merits. Consequently, I.A.2/2019 stands dismissed. 10. At this stage learned Additional Government Advocate seeks some time to refund the excess stamp duty to the respondents since the learned Single Judge had granted six months time from the date of receipt of the impugned order which was passed on 06.06.2017. In the circumstances, three weeks’ time is granted from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment to make payment to the respondents. Ordered accordingly.