JUDGMENT :

1. There is a delay of 859 days in filing the appeal.

2. Learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that I.A.1/2019 has been filed seeking condonation of delay. The said application is supported by an affidavit of the Assistant Inspector General of Registration (Law), Office of the Inspector General of Registration and Commissioner of Stamps, Bengaluru. She submitted that the delay has occurred due to bonafide and unintentional reasons and the same may be condoned as the appellant/State has a good case on merits. She further submitted that the appeal concerns an issue regarding refund of alleged excess stamp duty said to have been paid by the respondents and therefore, touches upon the State exchequer and hence, the application seeking condonation of delay may be considered liberally.

3. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned Additional Government Advocate drew our attention to the affidavit of Sri B.S.Sridhar, Assistant Inspector General of Registration (Law).

4. We have perused the said affidavit. Paragraphs 3 to 6 of the affidavit read as under:

“3. I humbly submit that the order of the learned Single Judge dated:06.06.2017 where immediate efforts were taken in order to check out the legality and as per the opinion of the Law Officer of the Advocate General office an also Department of Stamp and Registration allotment side, Law Department, of Government of Karnataka have expressed an opinion that there is a violation of non-consideration of the enactment and also there was no sufficient opportunity was given in order to file the objection. Accordingly, the correspondence which are required under the due process which has consumed certain bonafides times as not to arrive at the conclusion that an appeal is to be filed.

4. I submit that the due process of law has to be followed in considering the decision of the Government to file an appeal. The said delay as on account of administrative reasons and of the correspondence which are generally required time in processing to file an appeal.

5. I respectfully submit that the decision of filing an appeal was taken in various levels by moving the file from table to table, consumed considerable time, causing delay.

6. I submit that the delay in filing the above Appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional one, but for the bonafide reasons, stated above.”

5. On a reading of the same, we note that the impugned order was passed on 06.06.2017, but the appeal was filed only on 12.11.2019, there being a delay of 859 days in filing the appeal.

6. On reading of the explanation offered, we find that the same is vague and bereft of any details and is bald. No reason, let alone, any bonafide reason, has been stated by the State in support of the said application.

7. In this regard, it would be useful to refer to the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of condonation of delay in filing the appeals belatedly by the State:

(a) State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bheru Lal -(2020) 10 SCC 654:-The relevant paragraphs are extracted as under:

"5. A preposterous proposition is sought to be propounded that if there is some merit in the case, the period of delay is to be given a go-by. If a case is good on merits, it will succeed in any case. It is really a bar of limitation which can even shut out good cases. This does not, of course, take away the jurisdiction of the Court in an appropriate case to condone the delay.

xxx

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."

(b) The State of Odisha Vs. Sunanda Mahakuda -[SLP [C] Diary No.22605/2020 decided on 11.01.2021]:-The relevant extract reads as under:

“There is no doubt that these are cases including the present one where the Government machinery has acted in a ineffic