JUDGMENT D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,J. - This application is filed to condone the delay of 1767 days in filing the writ appeal against the order dtd. 10/7/2018 IN w.p.No.10725 of 2001. 2. This Court has heard Sri Butta Vijaya Bhasker, learned standing counsel for the appellant, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education and Sri V.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents. 3. The learned Government Pleader for Higher Education and learned Government Pleader for Services supported the arguments of the appellant. 4. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed a detailed counter and have very strongly opposed the application. 5. Sri Butta Vijaya Bhasker argues the matter in line with the affidavit and that he submits that the reasons that are mentioned in paras 11 to 13 of the affidavit filed constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay. He points out that the trial Judge committed serious error in interpreting the leading judgment of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 . and the writ petitioners are not actually entitled to any relief. He submits that due to lack of legal knowledge, the University could not file the writ appeal within time and after obtaining legal advice, the writ appeal is filed. Therefore, he submits that since there are merits in the matter and as the appellant had to take proper legal advice, the delay occurred. He prays for a liberal interpretation of Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act and for the words 'sufficient cause'. 6. Sri V.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposes the application. He relies upon the details mentioned in his counter affidavit and points out that although the order was passed on 10/7/2018 in the writ petition, copy application itself was made on 28/4/2023 and no explanation is given for the long delay. He also points out that contempt was taken up in C.C.No.541 of 2019 and the respondent has been contesting the matter. After notices were ordered for appearance of the contemnors as per the dates furnished in para 5, the present writ appeal is filed in June, 2023. He relies upon the following judgments of State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. A.Murali Madhava Rao and others, 2009 (3) ALD 355 . Postmaster General and others v. Living Media India Limited and another, (2012) 3 SCC 563 . He relies upon the following judgments of State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. A.Murali Madhava Rao and others, 2009 (3) ALD 355 . Postmaster General and others v. Living Media India Limited and another, (2012) 3 SCC 563 . and H.Dohil Constructions Company Private Limited v. Nahar Exports Limited and another, (2015) 1 SCC 680 . to argue that delay cannot be condoned even if the petitioner is a State or an instrumentality of the State. 7. This Court has considered the submissions. In view of the serious and vehement objection raised by the respondents, this Court has gone through the facts and law. Admittedly, the writ petition was allowed on 10/7/2018. The appellants passed a speaking order on 17/10/2019 by interpreting the order passed by the learned single Judge with a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (1 supra). The contention that is raised later in the affidavit that due to lack of legal knowledge, the writ appeal could not be filed does not appear to be correct. They interpreted the judgment in a manner that they felt correct by relying upon leading judgments' of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue of regularization which are Umadevi and State of Karnataka v. M.L.Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247 . This can only be done by people with legal knowledge or on legal advice. It is also clear that contempt case was initiated in the year 2019 by filing C.C.No.541 of 2019. Even thereafter, it is apparent that the appellants did not feel the need to question the order. A reading of the counter affidavit filed shows that the respondents were directed to be present in the Court also. Non-bailable warrant was also issued on 31/3/2023 which also recalled. Even thereafter, it does not appear that the University realized the urgency/need to challenge the order. 8. The case laws cited by the learned counsel for the respondents includes the Division Bench judgment reported in A.Murali Madhava Rao case (2 supra). In this case also, the Bench examined the delay in various stages and finally came to the conclusion that the causes mentioned are absolutely incorrect. In paras 19 and 20 the following was held: 19......... 8. The case laws cited by the learned counsel for the respondents includes the Division Bench judgment reported in A.Murali Madhava Rao case (2 supra). In this case also, the Bench examined the delay in various stages and finally came to the conclusion that the causes mentioned are absolutely incorrect. In paras 19 and 20 the following was held: 19......... While we are conscious of the dicta of the Apex Court reflected in the case law that the Court should not adopt hyper technical approach, we are equally duty bound to see that the make believe explanations of the State and its officers with a view to camouflage their utter lack of diligence, accountability and responsibility in pursuing the adversarial litigation are not passed off. Such an approach would only place premium on the negligence and inefficiency of the officers discharging the sovereign functions of the State. In the guise of protecting the public revenue, the bureaucratic apparatus cannot seek indulgence of this Court to cover up their lackadaisical approach, keeping the opposite parties in tenterhooks and make damocles sword hanging on their heads for years on end. 20. The intendment of law in prescribing limitation is to see that persons are not vexed with the litigation for unduly long periods and their legitimate expectation of receiving the fruits of success in litigation is not defeated after a certain period by dragging him to a further round of litigation. This legislative object based on public policy cannot therefore be frustrated by the officers at the helm of affairs by taking their sweet time and move at a pace which may put the proverbial snail to shame. 9. Similarly, in the leading judgment Postmaster General and others (3 supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even if the appellant is the Government and its instrumentalities, they have to furnish a reasonable explanation for the delay and show a bona fide approach. Even with regard to the re-filling, relying on the case of H.Dohil Constructions Company Private Limited (4 supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to condone the delay. 10. This Court is unable to agree with the contentions urged by the University. The persons at the helm of affairs are all educated academicians. They are supported by a battery of officials, standing counsels are also appointed for the Universities. 10. This Court is unable to agree with the contentions urged by the University. The persons at the helm of affairs are all educated academicians. They are supported by a battery of officials, standing counsels are also appointed for the Universities. The fact that they did not obtain clear and categorical instructions on the implications of the order are crystal clear. They have interpreted the leading judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a particular manner as can be seen from the affidavit. Therefore, it cannot be said that they had absolutely no 'legal knowledge'. Apart from the same, contempt petition was also filed in 2019. At least thereafter, in the opinion of this Court, the appellant should have been taken proper steps to question the order. The failure to act despite facing the consequence like contempt is clear. 11. In the light of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the explanation offered does not constitute sufficient cause to condone the delay. This application is therefore dismissed. As a consequence, the writ appeal is also dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.