JUDGMENT Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J. The present writ appeal, filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, arises from the judgment dated 25.05.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No. 17151 of 2020, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed, and Exts. P3, P4, and P7 - through which the appellants had demanded Cess from the respondent in connection with the construction of a building - were quashed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent is the owner of residential building No.15/138 in Survey No.125/6, 1 of the Guruvayur Village, Chavakkad Taluk, Thrissur District, having an extent of 233.95 square meters of plinth area. The application was submitted for building permit for construction of house which was granted on 02.02.2006. The house was constructed in the year 2008 and Occupancy Certificate was issued on 12.11.2008 by the Guruvayur Municipality. The respondent had challenged the issuance of notices, Exts.P3 and P4 dated 09.03.2020, and order Ext.P7 dated 27.12.2018, whereby a demand was made for payment of Cess by the respondent. 3. The learned Single Judge set aside the three orders and held that the revenue recovery can be done in the same manner as if it is a public revenue due on the land and the nature of the debt will not become a public revenue due on the land for that purpose, limitation of only three years would be applicable and also held that Article 137 of the Limitation Act provides that if there is no Limitation prescribed, the recovery has to be made within three years. 4. The appellants/State have challenged the judgment dated 25.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge by filing the present writ appeal, which was filed with a delay of 982 days. Consequently, C.M. Appln. No. 1 of 2025 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of the delay. 5. The reason assigned for the delay in filing the writ appeal is that the judgment was pronounced on 25.05.2022, and the certified copy was applied for on 27.05.2022. The copy was issued on 31.05.2022. The judgment was forwarded to the Government by the Office of the Advocate General on 08.07.2022. Upon perusal of the judgment, it was felt that the plea taken by the State had not been adequately considered by the learned Single Judge. The copy was issued on 31.05.2022. The judgment was forwarded to the Government by the Office of the Advocate General on 08.07.2022. Upon perusal of the judgment, it was felt that the plea taken by the State had not been adequately considered by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, after due consultations with the relevant authorities, the 1st appellant by letter dated 15.12.2023 instructed the office of the Advocate General to file the writ appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 6. The records indicate that the case file was received by the Senior Government Pleader on 15.12.2023. However, due to inadvertence, the file was misplaced during the process, resulting in an unintended delay in the finalization and filing of the appeal. It is further submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was caused solely by procedural formalities, administrative exigencies, and the inadvertent misplacement of the file—factors that were beyond the direct control of the appellants. There was no deliberate or willful negligence on the part of the appellants in prosecuting the appeal. In view of the aforementioned reasons, the delay of 982 days in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned. 7. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants/State in support of his contentions has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Chandramani and Others reported in [ 1996 (3) SCC 132 [ wherein it has been held as under:- "When the State is an applicant, praying for condonation of delay, it is common knowledge that on account of impersonal machinery and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the notemaking, file-pushing, and passing-on-the-buck ethos, delay on the part of the State is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve, but the State represents collective cause of the community. It is axiomatic that decisions are taken by officers/agencies proverbially at slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table and keeping it on table for considerable time causing delay intentional or otherwise - is a routine. Considerable delay of procedural red tape in the process of their making decision is a common feature. Therefore, certain amount of latitude is not impermissible. If the appeals brought by the State are lost for such default no person is individually affected but what in the ultimate analysis suffers, is public interest. Considerable delay of procedural red tape in the process of their making decision is a common feature. Therefore, certain amount of latitude is not impermissible. If the appeals brought by the State are lost for such default no person is individually affected but what in the ultimate analysis suffers, is public interest. The expression "sufficient cause" should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day's delay." 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in view of the settled legal principles of law, the delay and laches in filing the writ petitions/appeals cannot be brushed aside, otherwise, the same would amount to reviewing a dead/stale claim. Various judgments have been passed by Apex Court which are as under:- “(i) In the case of Postmaster General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. reported in [ (2012) 3 SCC 563 ] , it is held that merely because the Government is involved, different yardsticks cannot be laid down for condoning the delay. The SLPs dismissed due to delay of 427 days. (ii) In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh And Others Vs. Bherulal reported in [ (2020)10 SCC 654 [ , the Apex Court has held that unavailability of documents and the process of arranging the documents and bureaucratic process works cannot be a ground to condone the delay in filing of an appeal by the State. The delay of 663 days was not condoned and the SLP was dismissed with a cost of Rs. 25,000/-. In the case of State of M.P. & Anr. Vs. Chaitram Maywade reported in [ (2020)10 SCC 667 ] , it was held that the Law Department took 17 months in permitting filing of SLP. Officers responsible cannot just sit on the files and delay its filing. The SLP was dismissed with a cost of Rs. 35,000/- as delay of 588 days has occurred. (iii) In the case of Govt. of India Vs. Md Wasim Akram in SLP (Cri) Diary No. 10760/2020 , although it was a good case on merits, the threshold bar of delay and laches cannot be ignored. SLP was dismissed with a cost of Rs.25,000/- for a delay of 254 days.” 9. Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. of India Vs. Md Wasim Akram in SLP (Cri) Diary No. 10760/2020 , although it was a good case on merits, the threshold bar of delay and laches cannot be ignored. SLP was dismissed with a cost of Rs.25,000/- for a delay of 254 days.” 9. Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. In the present appeal, there is a delay of 982 days in filing the writ appeal. In the application seeking condonation of delay, no plausible explanation has been put forth by the appellants/State for such delay, therefore, the present appeal suffers from inordinate delay and laches and the same is liable to be dismissed. 11. Whilst, it is true that limitation does not strictly apply to the proceedings under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India, nevertheless such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time. Consideration of unexplained delays and inordinate laches would always be relevant in writ actions and writ Courts naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who have slept over wrongs and allowed illegalities to fester. Fence sitters cannot be allowed to barge into Courts and cry for their rights at their convenience and vigilant citizens ought not to be treated alike with mere opportunists. On multiple occasions, it has been restated by the Apex Court for there are implicit limitations of time within which writ remedies can be enforced. 12. In the case of S.S. Balu Vs. State of Kerela [ 2009 (2) SCC 479 ] , the Apex Court has observed that “it is also well-settled principle of law that "delay defeats equity........"” It is now a trite law that where the petitioner/appellant approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches. 13. In view of the aforesaid pronunciation of law and the fact that the delay has not been properly explained, C.M.Appln.No .1 of 2025 seeking condonation of delay is hereby rejected. Consequently, the writ appeal also stands dismissed.