JUDGMENT :

1. This civil second appeal, which is reported to be time barred by 977 days, is accompanied with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

2. Reiterating the averments made in the application, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the delay occurred in taking decision of appeal at various levels in the Government. He, therefore, prays that the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act be allowed and the delay in preferring the appeal be condoned.

3. Heard. Considered.

4. The reason assigned in the application seeking condonation of huge delay of 977 days is nothing but retoric of usual delay in movement of file from one table to another. It is trite law that one who approaches the Court of law, must show that he was vigilant of his rights. An indolent person is not entitled for condonation of delay in approaching the Court. Lack of promptitude and lethargy in movement of file in filing the appeal/petition by the State/its instrumentality has been deprecated by their Lordships in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Bherulal: 2020 SCC Online SC 849 wherein, it was observed as under:

"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 vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107). This position is more than elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office 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 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.” Eight years hence the judgment is still unheeded!"

5. In the case of Government of Maharashtra (