MC 3777/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA Heard Mr PS Deka, learned Government Advocate appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr B. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party/claima nt. 2. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, re ad with Order 41, Rule 3 A of Civil Procedure Code (’CPC’ for short) filed by th e applicant/petitioner for condoning the delay of 1805 days in preferring the ap peal against Judgment and Award dated 20.09.2005 passed in MAC Case No. 26/2002 by the learned court of Ad-hoc Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC) No. 2, Kamrup, Guwahati. 3. I have perused the statements made on oath in the application. S ignificantly, no attempt has been made by the applicant to explain the delay ade quately and satisfactorily. 4. Appearing on behalf of the claimant, Mr B. Chakraborty, learned counsel has submitted that an objection/affidavit-in-opposition has been filed o n behalf of the opposite party /claimant against the prayer for condoning the de lay, wherein it has been shown that there is no satisfactory explanation as to w hy there was a delay of 1805 days in preferring the accompanying appeal. Mr Chak raborty has brought to the notice of the Court paragraph 3 of the aforesaid obje ction, the same being relevant is quoted hereunder : 3. That the deponent had made an application under the Right to Information Act , 2005, before the authorities seeking information as to the reasons for the del ay in payment of the awarded sum, pursuant to which some informations had been f urnished to him. From the statements made and the documents annexed to the Misc. Case and also from the informations furnished to him under the Right to Informa tion Act, 2005, the following dates of events relevant to the issues, could be c ollected by the deponent. Date Particulars 20.9.2005 Judgment and Award passed by the Court. 26.6.2008 The Government Advocate asked for documents for submitting the a ppeal. 4.9.2009 Certified copy of the Judgment and Award was applied for which w as furnished on 23.9.2009. 11.12.2009 The Government Advocate informed in the matter of statutory depo sit of Rs.25000/- for preferring the Appeal. 04.03.2010 The requirement for the statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- communi cated by the Finance Department. 12.5.2010 Concurrence had been received from the Finance Department for de posit of the amount. 16.6.2010 Bill drawn and a cheque sent to the counsel for the statutory de posit. 3.9.2010 The Appeal was filed before this Hon’ble Court. (5) The chart given above would explicitly speak itself as to how th e Government has taken up the matter. This Court in the State of Tripura -Vs- Pr adip Ghosh and Ors. reported in (2002) 1 GLR 285 at paragraphs 7 and 8 observed as under: 7. It goes without saying that the delay so occurred has never been properl y and sufficiently explained. It is the settled law that if delay is sufficientl y explained the same deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice. There m ust not be any negligence or laches on the part of the party who seeks condonati on for the delay caused due to certain unavoidable circumstances. But in the pre sent case, it seems that the State-applicant has not taken any steps to explain such delay. It appears from the records that delay is inexcusable which does not warrant any consideration from this court. 8. It is seen that generally State is not taking due care to approach the C ourt for the redressal of any grievance which may arise from the judicial pronou ncements. Generally, it seems that they carry an impression in each and every ca se that by throwing an application to the Court, without having sufficient cause the delay will be condoned. The State has taken it as granted that court will b e always lenient in favour of it being a Government wherein the decision of the Government is a collective and institutional one and they cannot be treated at p ar with the private individual . 6. In consideration of the averments made in the application for co ndonation of delay as well as taking into account the statements made on oath in the objection petition filed on behalf of the opposite party/ claimant and havi ng regard to the decision in Pradip Ghosh (supra), this Court is of the view tha t the causes for delay in question have not been properly, adequately and satisf actorily explained. 7. In view of the discussion and observation made above, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay in question. 8. Consequently, the Misc. Case stands dismissed.