Delay in filing appeals must be sufficiently explained, particularly in government cases, or relief may be denied.

1. This writ appeal under S.2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uccha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 07/09/2016 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.1079/2016.

2. I.A. No.4769/2022, an application for condonation of delay in filing the present writ appeal is taken up.

3. The present writ appeal is barred by 2026 days.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that after passing of the impugned order dated 07/09/2016, the same was sent for seeking legal opinion on 05/12/2016. The legal opinion was received on 30/01/2017. Thereafter, W.A. No.209/2017 was filed and the same was dismissed with liberty to file a review petition before the learned writ Court. Then, review petition was filed bearing No.1857/2019 and the same was rejected as time barred. Being aggrieved by the orders, the present writ appeal has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the delay is genuine which has been caused due to procedural formalities and the same is bona fide on the part of the appellant. Therefore, delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his contentions has placed reliance on the judgment passed in the case of State of Haryana v. Chandramani and Others reported in 1996 (3) SCC 132 : (AIR 1996 SC 1623) wherein it has been held thus:
"When the State is an applicant, praying for condonation of delay, it is common knowledge that on account of impersonal machinery and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note - making, file - pushing, and passing - on - the - buck ethos, delay on the part of the State is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve, but the State represents collective cause of the community. It is axiomatic that decisions are taken by officers / agencies proverbially at slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table and keeping it on table for considerable time causing delay intentional or otherwise - is a routine. Considerable delay of procedural red tape in the process of their making decision is a common feature. Therefore, certain amount of latitude is not impermissible. If the appeals brought by the State are lost for such default no person is individually affected but what in the ultimate analysis suffers, is public interest. The expression "sufficient cause" should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice - oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day's delay."

7. In view of the settled legal principles of law when the delay and latches in filing the writ petitions / appeals cannot be brushed aside, otherwise, the same would amount to reviewing a dead / stale claim. Various judgments have been passed by Apex Court which are as under: - .
* In the case of Postmaster General and Others v. Living Media India Ltd. and Another 2012 (3) SCC 563 : (AIR 2012 SC 1506), it is held that merely because the Government is involved, different yardsticks cannot be laid down for condoning the delay. The SLPs dismissed due to delay of 427 days.
* In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh And Others v. Bherulal reported in 2020 (10) SCC 654 : (AIROnLine 2020 SC 833), the Apex Court held that unavailability of documents and the process of arranging the documents and bureaucratic process works cannot be a ground to condone the delay in filing of an appeal by the State. The delay of 663 days was not condoned and the SLP was dismissed with a cost of Rs. 25,000/-.
* In the case of State of M.P. and Another v. Chaitram Maywade reported in 2020 (10) SCC 667 : (AIROnLine 2020 SC 1014), it was held that the Law Department took