JUDGMENT : M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. 1. The instant interlocutory application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 by the applicants to condone the delay of 231 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal challenging the judgment dt. 22.3.2024 of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.(S) No. 6891 of 2017. 2. In the application filed seeking condonation of delay, it is stated that through a letter dt. 4.4.2024 received from the office of the learned Advocate General, it was informed that the writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 22.3.2024; till then order of the learned Single Judge was not uploaded on the website of the High Court; on 9.4.2024, proposal was mooted for taking appropriate decision and after going through various departmental channels, on 30.4.2024 the Departmental Secretary sent the file to the office of the Advocate General for obtaining necessary opinion. 3. It is then stated that on 3.5.2024, the Advocate General opined that the L.P.A. in the present case be preferred and returned the file. Thereafter the file was sent to the departmental retainer for preparing statement of facts and also grounds of appeal and then it was placed before the Departmental Secretary for approval on 12.8.2024. After such approval was granted, memo of appeal was also drafted and the Letters Patent Appeal was filed on 4.10.2024. 4. Thus, the Letters Patent Appeal was filed on 4.10.2024 challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge pronounced on 22.3.2024 with a delay of 231 days. 5. Application for certified copy of the judgment of learned Single Judge was made on 21.11.2024 and it was furnished on 29.11.2024, but it was filed much later. 6. Though the applicants were aware that the limitation for filing the Letters Patent Appeal is only 30 days from the date of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, no sense of urgency or diligence was shown to ensure that the appeal is filed within the period of limitation prescribed for the same. The file appears to have been moved from table to table through various departmental channels without any sense of urgency and after a period of 231 days, the appeal came to be filed. 7. In Postmaster General and others Vs. Living Media India Limited and another , (2012) 3 SCC 563 , the Supreme Court held: “25. The file appears to have been moved from table to table through various departmental channels without any sense of urgency and after a period of 231 days, the appeal came to be filed. 7. In Postmaster General and others Vs. Living Media India Limited and another , (2012) 3 SCC 563 , the Supreme Court held: “25. We have already extracted the reasons as mentioned in the “better affidavit” sworn by Mr. Aparajeet Pattanayak, SSRM, Air Mail Sorting Division, New Delhi. It is relevant to note that in the said affidavit, the Department has itself mentioned and is aware of the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in Office of the Chief Postmaster v. Living Media India Ltd. as 11-9- 2009. Even according to the deponent, their counsel had applied for the certified copy of the said judgment only on 8-1-2010 and the same was received by the Department on the very same day. There is no explanation for not applying for the certified copy of the impugned judgment on 11-9-2009 or at least within a reasonable time. The fact remains that the certified copy was applied for only on 8-1-2010 i.e. after a period of nearly four months. 26. In spite of affording another opportunity to file better affidavit by placing adequate material, neither the Department nor the person-in-charge has filed any explanation for not applying the certified copy within the prescribed period. The other dates mentioned in the affidavit which we have already extracted, clearly show that there was delay at every stage and except mentioning the dates of receipt of the file and the decision taken, there is no explanation as to why such delay had occasioned. Though it was stated by the Department that the delay was due to unavoidable circumstances and genuine difficulties, the fact remains that from day one the Department or the person/persons concerned have not evinced diligence in prosecuting the matter to this Court by taking appropriate steps. 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. 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.” (emphasis supplied) 8. These observations equally apply to the instant case where the applicants have acted in a similar manner as in the said case. 9. The said judgment has been followed by the Supreme Court in several cases such as Commissioner of Customs Chennai vs. M/s Volex Interconnect (India) Pvt. Ltd. , (2022) 3 SCC 159 , Pr. Commissioner Central Excise Delhi vs. Design Dialogues India Pvt. Ltd. , (2022) 2 SCC 327 , Union of India vs. Central Tibetan Schools Administration & Others , (2021) 11 SCC 557 , Union of India & Others vs. Vishnu Aroma Pouching Private Limited and another , (2022) 9 SCC 263 and State of Uttar Pradesh & Others vs. Sabha Narain & others , (2022) 9 SCC 266 . 10. In Union of India & Anr. Vs. 10. In Union of India & Anr. Vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through his LR s. 2024 INSC 262 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 489 , the Supreme Court held that it could not look into the merits of the matter as long as it is not convinced that sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of long and inordinate delay; that it hardly matters whether a litigant is a private party or a State or Union of India when it comes to condoning gross delay of more than 12 years; length of delay is a relevant matter which the Court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not; from the tenor of the approach of the appellants, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation; once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his long inaction, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. It was reiterated while considering plea for condonation of delay, Court must not start with the merits of the main case and the Court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It declared that delay should not be excused as a matter of generosity. 11. This was also reiterated in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramkumar Choudhary , Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 48636 of 2024 dated 29.11.2024. 12. We are satisfied that in the instant case, the respondents have not shown sufficient cause for condoning the above period of delay and have acted negligently in taking steps to file the appeal within time. 13. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal is also dismissed. 14. All pending applications shall stand closed.