JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is barred by 386 days. 2. In the application for condonation of delay, in order to explain long delay of 386 days, all that has been stated in the application is as below:- "3. That the special appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 11/04/2019 could not be filed within prescribed period of limitation due to procedural formalities and process for taking decision and thereafter, lockdown started from 22 March, 2020 due to pandemic COVID-19, thus, the appeal could not be filed within the time. 4. That the respondent-appellant is not negligent in preferring the special appeal. The delay in filing the special appeal is not willful and intentional but a bonafide one which occurred due to procedural formalities." 3. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the appellant was completely indolent and lethargic in taking remedy. The impugned order was passed on 11.04.2019. Even according to the appellant the lockdown started only from 22.03.2020. There is no explanation of the delay upto 22.03.2020. 4. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in two recent judicial pronouncements have deprecated this practice on the part of the State Authority in sitting over the matter and filing appeals after inordinate delay coming-forth with the only excuse of matter having remained pending in the office from one table to the other. 5. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. V. Bherulal, it was found that the appeal filed by the State was with delay of 663 days. The cause shown for inordinate delay in that case was due to unavailability of documents and the process of arranging documents and also a reference to bureaucratic process works. In the aforesaid factual context, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, referring to its earlier decision, observed as below- "3. No doubt, some leeway is given for the Government inefficiencies but the sad part is that the authorities keep on relying on judicial pronouncements for a period of time when technology had not advanced and a greater leeway was given to the Government (Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107 ). This position is more than elucidated by the judgment of this Court in of fice of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107 ). This position is more than elucidated by the judgment of this Court in of fice of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 563 where the Court 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. 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 bonafide, 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 bonafide 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 redtape 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. 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." Eight years hence the judgment is still unheeded!" 6. In another decision, in the case of Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) V. M/s. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd., also, in the factual context of long delay of 75 days, the explanation was found to be short of any sufficient cause. The explanation in the aforesaid case was noted in para 65 of the said judgment as below - "65. That apart, on the facts of this appeal, there is a long delay of 75 days beyond the period of 60 days provided by the Commercial Courts Act. Despite the fact that a certified copy of the District Court's judgment was obtained by the respondent on 27.04.2019, the appeal was filed only on 09.09.2019, the explanation for delay being: "2. That, the certified copy of the order dated 01/04/2013 was received by the appellant on 27/04/2019. Thereafter the matter was placed before the CGM purchase MPPKVVCL for the compliance of the order. The same was then sent to the law officer, MPPKVVCL for opinion. 3. That after taking opinion for appeal, and approval of the concerned authorities, the officer-in-charge was appointed vide order dated 23/07/2019. 4. That, thereafter due to bulky records of the case and for procurement of the necessary documents some delay has been caused however, the appeal has been prepared and filed to pursuant to the same and further delay. 5. That due to the aforesaid procedural approval and since the appellant is a public entity formed under the Energy department of the State Government, the delay caused in filing the appeal is bonafide and which deserve[s] to be condoned." 7. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not satisfied with the cause shown on the above lines and it was held as below: "66. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not satisfied with the cause shown on the above lines and it was held as below: "66. This explanation falls woefully short of making out any sufficient cause. This appeal is therefore allowed and the condonation of delay is set aside on this score also." 8. Taking into consideration the cause shown in the present application and in the light of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in two cases, we find ourselves unable to condone the delay in the absence of sufficient cause. 9. Accordingly, Application No. 462/2020 for condonation of delay is therefore dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed as barred by limitation.