Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. Government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment.

Judgment:

1. Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, learned P.L. for appellants/State. Heard on IA No. 5405/2012, an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

2. This order shall dispose of the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order dated 20-12-2010 which is barred by 516 days. The appellants seeking condonation of delay has taken the following grounds:--

"That after passing of the impugned award/judgment dated 20-12-2010, the necessary process was initiated.

That after the matter came to the knowledge of the appellant/State for the first time on 20-10-2010 on the very day, the opinion in the matter was sought from the concerned Government Advocate and after receiving the opinion on 7-4-2011, the matter was forwarded by the S.D.O. to the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, who in turn forwarded the same to the Superintending Engineer on 19-10-2011. Copy of the aforesaid letter are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A/2.

Thereafter, the Superintending Engineer sent the case to the Chief Engineer, WRD, Indore for seeking the necessary instructions vide letter dated 8-11-2011, copy of the letter dated 8-11-2011, is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A/3. The Chief Engineer forwarded the matter to the E. in C. on 23-12-2011 for seeking the necessary sanction of the Law Department for preferring the appeal. A copy of letter dated 23-12-2011 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A/4.

That, the Law and Legislative Affairs Department, MP Bhopal has granted the requisite permission on 17-5-2012 Annexure A/5 which was received on 11-6-2012 by the Officer in Charge through proper channel. Thereafter he in turn collected the entire record of the case and then has contacted the office of the Advocate General for the preparation of the appeal."

3. This shows that except for the lethargy on the part of the officer of the Government at any stage no other cogent reason has been shown for seeking condonation of delay.

4. The law with respect to the consideration of sufficient cause is well settled in the latest judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd., AIR 2012 SC 1506 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:--

"11) We have already extracted the reasons as mentioned in the "better affidavit" sworn by Mr. Aparajeet Pattanayak, SSRM, Air Mail Sorting Division, New Delhi. It is relevant to note that in the said affidavit, the Department has itself mentioned and is aware of the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High court in LPA Nos. 418 and 1006 of 2007 as 11-9-2009. Even according to the deponent, their counsel had applied for the certified copy of the said judgment only on 8-1-2010 and the same was received by the Department on the very same day. There is no explanation for not applying for certified copy of the impugned judgment on 11-9-2009 or at least within a reasonable time. The fact remains that the certified copy was applied only on 8-1-2010, i.e. after a period of nearly four months. In spite of affording another opportunity to file better affidavit by placing adequate material, neither the Department nor the person in-charge has filed any explanation for not applying the certified copy within the prescribed period. The other dates mentioned in the affidavit which we have already extracted, clearly show that there was delay at every stage and except mentioning the dates of receipt of the file and the decision taken, mere is no explanation as to why such delay had occasioned. Though it was stated by the Department that the delay was due to unavoidable circumstances and genuine difficulties, the fact remains that from day one the Department or the person/persons concerned have not evinced diligence in prosecuting the matter to this Court by taking appropriate steps.

12) It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved incl