JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is barred by 386 days.

2. In the application for condonation of delay, in order to explain long delay of 386 days, all that has been stated in the application is as below:-

"3. That the special appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 11/04/2019 could not be filed within prescribed period of limitation due to procedural formalities and process for taking decision and thereafter, lockdown started from 22 March, 2020 due to pandemic COVID-19, thus, the appeal could not be filed within the time.

4. That the respondent-appellant is not negligent in preferring the special appeal. The delay in filing the special appeal is not willful and intentional but a bonafide one which occurred due to procedural formalities."

3. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the appellant was completely indolent and lethargic in taking remedy. The impugned order was passed on 11.04.2019. Even according to the appellant the lockdown started only from 22.03.2020. There is no explanation of the delay upto 22.03.2020.

4. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in two recent judicial pronouncements have deprecated this practice on the part of the State Authority in sitting over the matter and filing appeals after inordinate delay coming-forth with the only excuse of matter having remained pending in the office from one table to the other.

5. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. V. Bherulal, it was found that the appeal filed by the State was with delay of 663 days. The cause shown for inordinate delay in that case was due to unavailability of documents and the process of arranging documents and also a reference to bureaucratic process works. In the aforesaid factual context, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, referring to its earlier decision, observed as below-

"3. No doubt, some leeway is given for the Government inefficiencies but the sad part is that the authorities keep on relying on judicial pronouncements for a period of time when technology had not advanced and a greater leeway was given to the Government (Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107). This position is more than elucidated by the judgment of this Court in of fice of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 563 where the Court observed as under:

"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) 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 redtape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligatio