JUDGMENT : M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. Re: I.A. No. 4288 of 2019 in LPA No. 337 of 2019 1. This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 by the applicants to condone the delay of 276 days in filing this appeal, challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 2. In the application filing seeking condonation of delay, it is stated that the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 1036 of 2018 was passed on 28.6.2018, that the information about the judgment was received in the applicants’ department on 12.7.2018, and the concerned Assistant made a note of it and placed the concerned file before the 2 nd appellant. It is stated that the copy of the impugned judgment was not available with the department and the 2 nd appellant then asked the Section Officer on 20.7.2018 to obtain the copy. 3. It is stated that in the meantime, the judgment was sent to the applicants’ department on 10.9.2018 by the High Court, and after receiving it, the file was placed before the Assistant Section Officer on 12.9.2018 in order that it be placed before the proper authority for taking appropriate decision. 4. It is stated that the file was then sent to the Deputy Director of the department on 12.9.2018 and he placed it before the Director on 14.9.2018. The file was then placed before the 1 st appellant on 3.10.2018 and he then requested the Law department of the State Government to give opinion on 12.10.2018. 5. It is stated that the file then sent to the Law department on 22.10.2018. Ultimately the file was placed before the Advocate General on 5.11.2018 and he endorsed it to his Associate Counsel for drafting the appeal and after collecting some relevant documents and material in January, 2019, the appeal was filed on 30.4.2019. 6. It is stated that the delay in filing of the appeal was on account of need to comply with procedural formalities and the same may be condoned. 7. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that though theimpugned judgment was pronounced on 28.6.2018 , application for certified copy was not made and the processing of the file actually commenced after the copy of the judgment sent by the High Court, was received on 10.9.2018 i.e. more than 2 and 1/ 2 months later. 8. 7. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that though theimpugned judgment was pronounced on 28.6.2018 , application for certified copy was not made and the processing of the file actually commenced after the copy of the judgment sent by the High Court, was received on 10.9.2018 i.e. more than 2 and 1/ 2 months later. 8. Even, thereafter, the file was being sent from table to table and from officer to officer and though the Advocate General office received it on 5.11.2018, the appeal came to be filed only on 30.4.2019, five months later. 9. Thus, at every stage, there was a delay in taking steps to file the appeal. 10. 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. 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. 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) 11. These observations equally apply to the instant case where the applicants have acted in a similar manner as in the said case. 12. 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. These observations equally apply to the instant case where the applicants have acted in a similar manner as in the said case. 12. 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-1 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 ] 13. In Union of India & Anr. Vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through his LR , [ 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. 14. 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. 14. This was also reiterated in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramkumar Choudhary, Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 48636 of 2024 dt. 29.11.2024 15. By allowing multiple people to deal with the question as to whether or not the judgment of the learned Single Judge is to be challenged and, without speeding up the process within the Department, it is not open to the appellants to act as if they can take their own sweet time and file the appeal as and when it suits them. 16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the above decisions of the Supreme Court, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has not been shown by the applicants for condonation of delay of 276 days in filing the appeal. 17. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal is also dismissed. 18. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.