JUDGMENT : M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. I.A. No. 3538 of 2023 in L.P.A. No. 174 of 2023 1. This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,1963 to condone the delay of 336 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal challenging the judgment dt. 05.04.2022 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 1194 of 2009. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of this application, it is stated that the said order was communicated to the applicant-Department on 29.04.2022; that the respondents made representation on 09.05.2022 and 13.05.2022 enclosing copy of the impugned order which were received on 10.05.2022 and 19.05.2022; matter was then placed before the Under Secretary of the Department on 11.05.2022 and a detailed note was also put up on26.08.2022. 3. This note appears to have been put up almost four months after the copy of the judgment of the learned Single Judge was communicated to the applicant-department and the reason for the delay in putting up the note of four months is not explained. 4. It is next stated in the application filed for condonation of delay that the Under Secretary to the Department, two months later on 26.10.2022 raised a query which was answered by the Section Officer on 16.11.2022 and the file was sent for approval to Legal Section on 18.11.2022 and then again sent to the Advocate General on 22.11.2022, who approved the filing of the appeal on 06.12.2022. It is stated that the statement of facts were then prepared on 17.02.2023 and approved on 21.02.2023 and the file was then transferred to the present counsel on 02.03.2023 and the appeal came to be filed on 06.04.2023. 5. Thus almost 4½ months elapsed between the sending of the file for approval of the Legal Section till the filing of the appeal. 6. The applicants were certainly aware that the Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge has to be filed within 30 days from the date of pronouncement of judgment by the learned Single Judge, but at every stage, as explained above, there was a delay in taking steps to file the Letters Patent Appeal. 7. Also decision to file the appeal seems to have been taken after several people in the department studied the file. 8. Postmaster General and others Vs. 7. Also decision to file the appeal seems to have been taken after several people in the department studied the file. 8. 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-incharge 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) 9. These observations equally apply to the instant case where the applicants have acted in a similar manner as in the said case. 10. 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 . 11. In Union of India Vs. 11. In Union of India Vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through his Legal Heir, 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. 12. 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. 13. 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 in appeal and, without speeding up the process within the Department, it is not open to the appellants to contend that they can take their own sweet time and file the appeal as and when it suits them. 14. 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 appellants for condonation of delay of 336 days in filing in filing the appeal. 15. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. 14. 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 appellants for condonation of delay of 336 days in filing in filing the appeal. 15. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal is also dismissed. No costs. C.O. (Filing) No. 10980 of 2024 16. Since the appeal itself is not being admitted, the Cross Objection cannot be entertained. 17. Therefore, granting liberty to the cross objectors/respondents to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge by way of separate Letters Patent Appeal, if they are so advised, the Cross Objection filed are dismissed.