JUDGMENT : Battu Devanand, J. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order, dated 16.10.2024 passed in W.P.No.3003 of 2020 by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners/appellants. 3. Originally, an interlocutory application in I.A.No.01 of 2025 is filed seeking condonation of delay of 380 days in filing the present Writ Appeal, along with an accompanying affidavit. The relevant portion of the accompanying affidavit is extracted herein under: “2. I submit that this Hon’ble Court pronounced the judgment order in W.P.No.3003 of 2020, dated 16.10.2024 and this office received the same officially through Registered post on 08.11.2024. The Respondent/Society has thoroughly examined the matter with reference to relevant rules in force on record. Further, the Respondent/Society has addressed a letter to the Government for necessary directions on implementing the order vide Lr.RC.No.HR-I/2717978/2022, dated 18.02.2025. Further, Government have directed to implement court directions with respect to petitioner in W.P.No.3003 of 2020 and also directed to take legal opinion on implementing the orders with respect to 5 th respondent vide Letter No.2614625/SW(RS)DEPT/2024, dated 25.03.2025. Accordingly, a letter was addressed to Standing Counsel vide Lr.RC.No.HR-I/2717978/2022, dated 27.03.2025 and legal opinion was obtained from the Standing Counsel on 12.09.2025 and after receipt of legal opinion, the Appellant Society has taken decision to file Writ Appeal for questioning the judgment passed in W.P.No.3003 of 2020. Hence, there is a delay of 380 days in presenting the Writ Appeal and the said delay is neither wilfull nor wanton solely stated above reason.” 4. A perusal of those averments, it appears that though they receive the order copy of this Court in W.P.No.3003 of 2020 on 08.11.2024, they sought legal opinion of the Standing Counsel only on 27.03.2025 and as per those averments, it appears that the learned Standing Counsel furnished the legal opinion on 12.09.2025. Exchanging correspondence within the Government or obtaining legal opinion from their legal counsel are internal issues between them. But, the reasons stated for the delay of 380 days are not sufficient to condone the said abnormal delay. 5. The Apex Court and this Court, time and again, declared that the Government officials should be very vigilant and cautious while implementing Court orders or in preferring appeals within the period of limitation. But, the reasons stated for the delay of 380 days are not sufficient to condone the said abnormal delay. 5. The Apex Court and this Court, time and again, declared that the Government officials should be very vigilant and cautious while implementing Court orders or in preferring appeals within the period of limitation. If the delay is for a reasonable period, this Court may understand the difficulties of the officers in filing the appeal and may take a lenient view. However, when the delay is more than one (01) year, the same is not acceptable to this Court, particularly in the absence of any sufficient cause as shown by the petitioners/appellants. 6. At this stage, this Court relies upon the following judgments of the Apex Court while dealing with the petitions filed for condonation of delay. 7. In the case of Office of Chief Post Master General and others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another , 2012 LawSuit (SC) 124 the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with a petition filed for condonation of delay of 427 days after considering various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, observed as extracted hereunder: “12. 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. 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 bonafide, 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. 13. 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. 13. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.” 8. In another judgment relied by the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while dealing with an application to condone the delay of 663 days, came down heavily, while dismissing the said application in The State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Bherulal , 2020 SCC OnLine SC 849 as extracted hereunder: “6. We are also of the view that the aforesaid approach is being adopted in what we have categorized earlier as “certificate cases”. The object appears to be to obtain a certificate of dismissal from the Supreme Court to put a quietus to the issue and thus, say that nothing could be done because the highest Court has dismissed the appeal. It is to complete this formality and save the skin of officers who may be at default that such a process is followed. We have on earlier occasions also strongly deprecated such a practice and process. There seems to be no improvement. It is to complete this formality and save the skin of officers who may be at default that such a process is followed. We have on earlier occasions also strongly deprecated such a practice and process. There seems to be no improvement. The purpose of coming to this Court is not to obtain such certificates and if the Government suffers losses, it is time when the concerned officer responsible for the same bears the consequences. The irony is that in none of the cases any action is taken against the officers, who sit on the files and do nothing. It is presumed that this Court will condone the delay and even in making submissions, straight away counsels appear to address on merits without referring even to the aspect of limitation as happened in this case till we pointed out to the counsel that he must first address us on the question of limitation. 7. We are thus, constrained to send a signal and we propose to do in all matters today, where there are such inordinate delays that the Government or State authorities coming before us must pay for wastage of judicial time which has its own value. Such costs can be recovered from the officers responsible. 8. Looking to the period of delay and the casual manner in which the application has been worded, we consider appropriate to impose costs on the petitioner- State of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee. The amount be deposited in four weeks. The amount be recovered from the officers responsible for the delay in filing the special leave petition and a certificate of recovery of the said amount be also filed in this Court within the said period of time.” 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Postmaster General and others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another , 1992 (3) SCC 563 wherein it is held as hereunder: “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. 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. 29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.” 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while dealing with an application to condone the delay of 916 days caused in preferring an appeal in case of University of Delhi vs. Union of India (UOI) and others , 2020(1) ALT 230 held as hereunder: “20. From a consideration of the view taken by this Court through the decisions cited supra the position is clear that, by and large, a liberal approach is to be taken in the matter of condonation of delay. The consideration for condonation of delay would not depend on the status of the party namely the Government or the public bodies so as to apply a different yardstick but the ultimate consideration should be to render even handed justice to the parties. Even in such case the condonation of long delay should not be automatic since the accrued right or the adverse consequence to the opposite party is also to be kept in perspective. Even in such case the condonation of long delay should not be automatic since the accrued right or the adverse consequence to the opposite party is also to be kept in perspective. In that background while considering condonation of delay, the routine explanation would not be enough but it should be in the nature of indicating “sufficient cause” to justify the delay which will depend on the backdrop of each case and will have to be weighed carefully by the Courts based on the fact situation. In the case of Katiji (Supra) the entire conspectus relating to condonation of delay has been kept in focus. However, what cannot also be lost sight is that the consideration therein was in the background of dismissal of the application seeking condonation of delay in a case where there was delay of four days pitted against the consideration that was required to be made on merits regarding the upward revision of compensation amounting to 800 per cent. 21. As against the same, the delay in the instant facts in filing the LPA is 916 days and as such the consideration to condone can be made only if there is reasonable explanation and the condonation cannot be merely because the appellant is public body. The entire explanation noticed above, depicts the casual approach unmindful of the law of limitation despite being aware of the position of law.” 11. In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court stated supra and as the petitioners failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of such huge delay, this Court is inclined to dismiss I.A.No.01 of 2025. 12. Accordingly, I.A.No.01 of 2025 is hereby dismissed. 13. In view of the dismissal of I.A.No.01 of 2025, the Writ Appeal shall stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.