Devendra Pal Singh Chauhan, J. - (1.) IN view of the following observations of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Vinod Prakash Tayal and others S.L.P. No. 15439 of 1992, the appeal, which is reported to have been barred by time by 340 days and is accompanied with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, deserves to be rejected. There is delay of 149 days the explanation for which is wholly unsatisfactory. The mere reliance on inter department correspondence can not advance the petitioners case for the condonation of this inordinate delay. The time taken for such deliveration must be sensible and reasonable. In this case it is neither. We find it difficult to condone this inordinate delay of 149 days. The State Govt. shall sit up and take note of such lapse on the part of its officers which will harm public interests. No officer loses personally where appeal of Govt. are lost for delay. But there are cases, as here, where public interest suffers on account of such inaction. We dismiss S.A. for condonation of delay. Consequently, SLP is dismissed as barred by time. There is hardly any case of the State of U.P. which is filed without delay and the story for condonation of delay is illogical which does not inspire confidence. No sufficient cause made out for issuance of the notice under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The efficiency of the State Government, which has become the biggest litigant has lowered down so much so to add to the sufferance of the litigants. Any encouragement for inefficiency will work havoc as the applications for condonation of delay on behalf of State Govt. will be piled up with no certainty for decisions in near future. State has to rise to the occasion and generate its efficiency at least as a litigant.
(2.) THE application is rejected. Consequently, the appeal is also rejected as barred by time.;