1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Civil Application No. (CAF) No. 1598/2010 in First Appeal St. No. 11678/2010 (M.I.D.C. Through its Chief Executive Officer .vs. Rehmatkhan s/o Musekhan and ors. ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. A.G. Ramteke, Advocate h/f Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. S.P. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent no.1. Respondents 2 and 3 served. CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : Decemnber 10 2010 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : DECEMBER 21, 2010 1. Heard. 2. The applicant a statutory Corporation established for rapid and orderly establishment of organization of industries in the State of Maharashtra seeks condonation of 485 days delay in preferring an appeal against judgment and decree awarding enhanced compensation to respondent no.1. 3. The respondents no.2 and 3 had acquired lands of respondent no.1 for setting up an additional industrial area in Amravati district by the applicant. The respondent no.3 by the award dated 20.3.1997 had granted compensation to respondent no.1 for said lands acquired. The compensation awarded was enhanced to 2 by the Reference Court in terms of the judgment and decree passed on 6.12.2008 in favour of respondent no. 1. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that after receiving an intimation from the local counsel the certified copies of the judgment and decree were applied on 7.1.2009. The certified copies were received on 14.1.2009. The Regional Officer of the applicant after going through the same, on 19.1.2009 forwarded xerox copy of the same to the Legal Department at Head Office at Bombay and sought approval for filing appeal. 5. The learned counsel further urged that on 17.4.2009 said Officer was transferred and the person in-charge of the said post was also transferred. The Regional Officer Shri Watkar took charge in August, 2009. The Regional Officer Shri Watkar during the verification of the status of the legal matters taken September, 2009 onwards after receipt of information from the local counsel and after verifying the office record became aware that present matter was forwarded to the Head Office. He brought to the notice of the Head Office about the matter being pending for the opinion. After receiving the approval from Head Office on 5.2.2010, the matter was sent to the counsel. On demand of counsel , the necessary papers like copies of evidence etc. were given to him on 4.3.2010. The court fees for preferring the proceedings were received by the counsel on 2.7.2010 and thereafter the present application along with the appeal was presented. 6. The learned counsel urged that all the said 3 events reveal that the delay had occurred in preferring the appeal due to matter having remained pending for receiving the approval. He urged that the events occurred indicate that there was no intentional delay on part of the applicant in not preferring the appeal within the limitation prescribed. He urged that the delay had occurred due to track of the matter being lost due to persons in-charge of the matter was in the meanwhile transferred and the relevant information about the matter having remained to be received by the successor. He thus contended that thus there is sufficient cause for condoning the unintentional delay occurred. He urged that non-condoning the delay would deprive the applicant a fair opportunity to test the merits of the decree passed against them and related to utilisation of public money for public purpose. He urged that condoning the delay will not cause any injustice to respondent no.1 as he would be getting all the opportunity in contesting matter on merits. 7. Though application was vehemently opposed on part of respondent no.1, after considering the matters stated in the affidavit filed by the Officer of the applicant in support of the application, it is difficult to accept that the delay had not occurred for the reasons canvassed. Such a conclusion is obvious as hardly any material is placed on record on behalf of the respondent no.1 for not accepting the matters stated in said affidavit filed. Thus it is apparent that the delay was caused due to the laxity on the part of the Officers of the applicant in not keeping proper track of the matter. Hence non-condoning the delay would result in allowing 4 a statutory corporation to suffer while carrying out public duty due to the laxity of the employees. It has been settled by the numerous decisions that even though Government or the Government Organization are not different than the other litigants still, while considering the concept of the sufficient cause , the pragmatic problems and situation faced by them are required to be taken into account and so also the play at the joints has to be given allowance due to same being due to impersonal nature of the organization and being due to bureaulogy, late pushing of files etc. 8. In the premises aforesaid, the applicant having shown sufficient cause for the delay occurred, the same deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice and hence is hereby condoned. However, since the respondent no.1 cannot be allowed to suffer for laches of the Officers of applicant, he deserves to be compensated by the applicant by paying cost of Rs. 10,000/- within six weeks from the date of order as a condition precedent. 9. Application stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE halwai