JUDGMENT VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J. - Aggrieved by the Common Order dtd. 24/8/2022, allowing the Writ Petitions, the above Appeals along with Interlocutory Applications to condone the delay of 201 days in filing W.A.No.403/2023 and of 202 days in filing W.A.No.434/2023have been preferred, which are being disposed of by this Common Order. Procedural History. 2. The Writ Petitioners filed W.P.No.14395/2016 impugning a Government Memo dtd. 22/4/2015 which included the land in Sy.No.20/1 of Damieedu Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District, in the prohibitory list and for implementation of orders passed in W.P.No.11457/2011 as affirmed in W.A.No.305/2012 by this Court. During the subsistence of the said W.P., another Government Memo dtd. 5/10/2017 was issued declaring the subject land as Upparapalli Tank, which was impugned in W.P.No.37389/2017. A Learned Single Judge of this Court after detailed discussion and consideration allowed the Writ Petitions by a Common Order dtd. 24/8/2022. The Appellants in W.A.No.434/2023 are Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 6 in W.P.No.14395/2016. The Appellants in W.A.No.403/2023 are Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in W.P.No.37389/2017. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 3. The Learned Government Pleader while referring to the various grounds raised in the appeals would submit that the order of the Learned Single Judge is unsustainable and warrants interference by this Court in the W.As. In so far as delay of 201 days and 202 days in filing the respective appeals are concerned, the learned Government Pleader submits that due to administrative reasons, delay occurred and if not condoned, it would cause serious prejudice and loss. 4. Refuting the said contentions, learned Senior counsel Sri N.Subba Rao, appearing for the Respondents/Writ Petitioners, opposed the request for condonation of delay contending that the delay in filing the appeals have not been explained sufficiently. He would also impress upon this Court on the history of litigation involved on subject land stating that the Lokayukhta of Andhra Pradesh having suo-moto examined the complaint of scam concerning the subject land, dismissed the same as devoid of merits, vide order dtd. 20/6/2008. Subsequently since registration was not permitted in view of prohibitory orders, the petitioners moved W.P.No.11457/2011 which was allowed by this Court vide order dtd. 25/1/2012 directing to process the documents. W.A.No.305/2012 filed by the Respondents against the same on similar grounds as assailed in the present W.A.s was dismissed by this Court, vide order dtd. 7/8/2012. 5. 20/6/2008. Subsequently since registration was not permitted in view of prohibitory orders, the petitioners moved W.P.No.11457/2011 which was allowed by this Court vide order dtd. 25/1/2012 directing to process the documents. W.A.No.305/2012 filed by the Respondents against the same on similar grounds as assailed in the present W.A.s was dismissed by this Court, vide order dtd. 7/8/2012. 5. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that since once again the subject land got included in the prohibited list, W.P.No.14395/2016 and W.P.No.37389/2017 were filed, which were allowed in the impugned order dtd. 24/8/2022 challenged in the Writ Appeals. Under the said circumstances, he would submit that the Writ Appeals are devoid of merits and urges for dismissal by rejecting the prayer for delay condonation. Point for Consideration 6. This Court heard the submissions and perused the material available on record. Sufficient cause for delay in filing appeal can never be substituted by the merits of the matter for condonation of delay. As such, the focal point arising for consideration is only as to whether the petitioners have shown sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the time prescribed. Analysis & Finding 7. In the Affidavits filed in support of the delay condonation petitions, the reasons for delay are purportedly explained at para 9 which states that the deponent, being District Election Officer, was vested with the duties of monitoring and coordination by the State Election Commission in September in view of the Member of Legislative Council (MLC) Graduate Elections and that being in Tirupati district, he is overburdened with the protocol duties. Another averment made in the affidavit is that since Tirupati district was recently bifurcated from erstwhile Chittoor district, it has taken time to trace records. In conclusion, the deponent prayed to condone delay. 8. The Writ Petitioners filed counter affidavit to the delay condonation petitions interalia contending that no substantial grounds have been explained for condonation except stating administrative lapses and as such the Petitions deserve dismissal. 9. Duration of the delay i.e., long period or short period is not the determinative factor in deciding delay condonation petitions as sufficiency of the reasons explained for the delay would form the crux. Though a liberal view must be taken in condonation of delay, it cannot be justified to extend that principle so much so in situations where no sufficient explanation is provided to reason the delay. Though a liberal view must be taken in condonation of delay, it cannot be justified to extend that principle so much so in situations where no sufficient explanation is provided to reason the delay. In view of this Court, any contrary view would nurture deliberate negligence on the concerned parties in pursuing their matters. 10. Time and again, this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court has taken a dim view of the casual attitude of the State/Departments in filing appeals with delays. In G. Ramegowda v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, AIR 1988 SC 897 the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that the decision of an individual could be instantaneous, whereas Government or a bureaucratic department "hesitates and halts, discusses and debates, considers and consults, peeps through papers and files, speaks through notes and drafts, moves horizontally and vertically till at last it gravitates towards a conclusion". Further, the Apex Court observed that since the Legislature has not provided for any different provisions for delay condonations in matters filed by the State/Departments, material facts are to be placed before the Court which resulted in the delay instead of making a sweeping statement that delay is caused because of administrative grounds. 11. In Chief Post Master General and Ors. vs. Living Media India Ltd., & Anr., 2012 (3) SCC 563 , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed at para 13 as follows:- "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 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. 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." This view has been strongly reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bherulal 2020 SCC OnLine SC 849. 12. As seen from the record, the delay condonation petitions were filed in the month of April, 2023 whereas the impugned order is passed in the month of August, 2022. It is also borne out of the affidavit that it is signed in the month of February, prepared in the month of March. For justification of the delay in filing the Writ Appeals, no plausible reason is placed in affidavit except stating certain administrative grounds with no proper detail. Moreover, in view of the series of litigation concerning the subject land as mentioned supra, it is obvious to expect certain diligence in pursuing the matter instead of the lackadaisical approach. 13. In the light of the factual and legal position, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay in filing the Writ Appeals. Accordingly, the Interlocutory Applications seeking to condone the delay are dismissed. Consequently, the Writ Appeals also stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.