JUDGMENT : M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. 1. This application is filed to condone delay of 257 days in filing this appeal challenging the judgment dt. 03.08.2023 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 1124 of 2022. 2. In the application seeking condonation of delay, it is stated that after the judgment was pronounced on 3 rd August 2023, the Assistant Inspector General of Prison on 11.01.2024 endorsed the file to the Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, for seeking guidance for the purpose of filing LPA before the Court; on 24.01.2024, file was processed for seeking legal opinion from Law Department; the file was forwarded to the Advocate General, Jharkhand for his legal opinion on 29.01.2024; that he gave legal opinion for filing LPA on 13.02.2024. It is stated that on 28.02.2024 it was marked to the Legal Retainer for preparing grounds of appeal, they were drafted and sent to the office of the S.C. (L&C)-I for verification on 18.03.2024. Then, the LPA was filed on 16.05.2024. 3. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that though the judgment of the learned Single Judge had been pronounced on 03.08.2023, till 11.01.2024, i.e., for five months after the judgment was pronounced, nothing was done for filing of the LPA. Even after the Advocate General gave opinion to file LPA on 13.02.2024, the appeal was filed three months later, on 16.05.2024. Thus at every stage, there was negligence and inordinate delay on part of the applicants in pursuing the matter since, it is not as if the applicants were not aware that the time limit for preferring the said appeal is only thirty days from the date of judgment of the learned Single Judge. 4. 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. 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. 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. 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.” 5. 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 ] 6. In Union of India Vs. 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. 7. 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 8. 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 257 days in filing the appeal. 9. Accordingly this application is dismissed. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal is also dismissed. 10. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.