Rakesh Tiwari, J. - This first appeal is reported by the Stamp Reporter to be beyond time by 161 days from 8.2.2010. It is also reported that there is deficiency of 10335/- in payment of the court fee according to valuation of the appeal, and accordingly the appeal is reported to be defective one and has been filed alongwith delay condonation application No. 205599 of 2010 supported by affidavit.

2. I have heard Sri Shrish Chandra, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant - State of U.P. and perused the reasons given in the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application explaining the delay.

3. It appears from the averments made in the affidavit that there might not be negligence on part of the State for the period upto 31.12.2009. But thereafter delay has not properly been explained and cursory statement has been made to cover up the delay in filing the appeal. There is no reasonable explanation as to why appeal was not filed immediately after 31.12.2009. It is beyond comprehension why the government did not grant permission for filing the appeal immediately after 31.12.2009 which was allegedly granted on 7.4.2010 which is said to have been received alongwith copy of the letter dated 21.4.2010. There is also no explanation given as to why the Executive Engineer, East Ganga Canal, Construction Division-7, district Bijnor after receipt of the permission, had not filed the appeal immediately and instructed the Assistant Engineer, East Ganga Canal Construction Division only after about a month for filing the appeal.

4. The statement made in paragraph no. 13 of the affidavit that from 15.5.2010 to 30.6.2010 the officials of the department were busy in Jangarana of the country and as such could not approach the Court to file the appeal, is very vague. This paragraph does not explain at all as to whether the deponent of the affidavit was actually involved in Jangarana or not. Even if he was involved in Jangarana, it is not explained in the affidavit as to why no other person who was not involved in Jangarana was not sent for filing the appeal. Even if this period is overlooked, admittedly the Court had opened on July 1, 2010, yet the official allegedly contacted office of the standing counsel on 9.7.2010.

5. It appears from the averments made in the affidavit that there is negligence as well as latches on the part of officers concerned in filing the appeal which was unexplained. Day to day delay in filing the appeal has not reasonably been explained.

6. It is also an admitted fact that the D.G.C. (civil) had applied for certified copy of the impugned judgment dated 26.10.2009 and decree dated 10.11.2009, on 28.10.2009 which was ready on the notice board on 11.11.2009 and was delivered on 12.11.2009, yet the officials of the department had contacted office of the standing counsel without proper valuation of the court fee sanctioned. There is no even a whisper why the State Government which is not a pauper, did not sanction full court fee particularly when the appeal is filed with latches of more than 161 days.

7. Considering the above explanation given in the delay condonation application and noting the fact that there is huge deficiency in court fee also, in the considered opinion of this Court, no ground is made out to condone the delay in filing the appeal.

8. Generally, the Courts adopt lenient view while deciding the application for condonation of delay. However, the position now has become critical and requires remedial approach to the Government Officers who keep the matters pending and take their own time to grant permission for challenging the orders in higher courts either because they are incapable of taking decision in such matters or do not want to take a decision. The State Government is the bigger litigant in country. It has the aid of Govt. Counsels in lower judiciary, Standing Counsels in High Courts and Govt. Advocates on panel in Apex Court. The State Government has its legal cells