1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1125 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.1045 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ... APPLICANT VERSUS Madanlal Mohanlal Pallod (died) his L.Rs. Godawaribai Madanlal Pallod & ors. ... RESPONDENTS ----- Shri K.J. Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for the applicant None for respondent Nos.1 to 3 in spite of service. ----- CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 7th November, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Perused. Heard learned A.G.P. for the applicant. 2. The applicant/ State has preferred the present application for condonation of delay of 3059 days in filing the accompanying First Appeal challenging the common judgment and award dated 8.6.1998, passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Latur in Land Acquisition Reference No.330/1991. 2 3. The applicant submits that, after passing the aforesaid judgment and award, the applicant applied for certified copies on 30.1.2006, which were ready for delivery on 31.1.2006 and applicant collected the same on 1.2.2006 and thereafter submitted the proposal to Law & Judiciary Department for sanction through Government Pleader’s office. Accordingly, Law & Judiciary Department sanctioned the proposal and forwarded the same to the office of Government Pleader on 18.1.1999. Government Pleader’s office assigned the matter for drafting to the concerned A.G.P. on the same day and the concerned A.G.P. drafted the same accordingly and First Appeal came to be filed on 20.1.2007 since the certified copies of judgment and order and typed copies were not received and, therefore, submitted that the said delay is not intentional, deliberate and willful and prayed that same be condoned in the interest of justice. 4. Considering the averments in the present application and also considering the submissions advanced by learned A.G.P., it is a matter of record that although the judgment and award was passed on 8.6.1998, the applicant applied for certified copies after substantial period of almost 8 years i.e. on 30.1.2006 and applicant has not explained the said delay. Moreover, although the concerned A.G.P. received the said matter for 3 drafting the First Appeal on 18.1.1999 and he drafted the same accordingly, till the accompanying First Appeal came to be filed on 20.1.2007 and the said delay also has not been explained by the applicant anywhere satisfactorily. 5. Hence, it is apparently clear that the delay occurred in filing the accompanying First Appeal is not bonafide and it appears that the said delay is willful, deliberate and intentional and it is certainly inordinate and, therefore, same cannot be condoned. 6. Reliance can be very well placed on the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court, headed by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice in the judgment reported at 2008(6) Mh.L.J. 239 (State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Vithu Kalya Govari and others), in which it has been held as under : “ The public authority or a department is not expected to be negligent or to take no action for years and let the matters become barred by time surely because of its negligence and inaction. The applicants in their application have stated that delay occurred because of “official hassle” and approval at different levels. This can hardly justify condonation of delay. In law advantage has accrued to the non-applicants claimants and the same ought not to be withdrawn in a mechanical manner and that too without any sufficient cause being shown by the 4 applicants. Despite, awards/ judgments of the Courts, which have attained finality, the claimants are not permitted to receive compensation that itself would be a sufficient prejudice to their rights. Before the delay can be condoned and claimants can be subjected to a prolonged litigation, the onus to show sufficient cause lies upon the applicant State. For the reason that the applicants have failed to show sufficient or reasonable cause (in fact they have shown no cause) for the condonation of delay, it is declined.” 7. Moreover, recently the Apex Court, in the case reported at 2008(6) ALT 38(SC) (Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by L.Rs. Vs. Exe. Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project and Anr.) by judgment dated 3.11.2008, held that it is the duty of the applicants though they are Government authorities, to explain the delay with cogent reasons and reliance can be very much placed on the observations made in paragraph No.24 thereof which reads as under : “24. It is true when the State and its instrumentalities are the applicants seeking condonation of delay they may be entitled to certain amount of latitude but the law of limitation is same for citizen and for Governmental authorities. Limitation Act does not provide for a different period to the Government in filing appeals or applications as such. It would be a different matter where the 5 Government makes out a case where public interest was shown to have suffered owing to acts of fraud or collusion on the part of its officers or agents and where the officers were clearly at cross purposes with it. In a given case if any such facts are pleaded or provided they cannot be excluded from consideration and those factors may go into the judicial verdict. In the present case, no such facts are pleaded and proved though a feeble attempt by the learned counsel for the respondent was made to sugget collusion and fraud but without any basis. We cannot entertain the submission made across the Bar without there being any proper foundation in the pleadings.” 8. In the circumstances, the present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and hence, deserves to be rejected and the same stands rejected accordingly. Registration of First appeal stands refused. [SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] fmp/ca1125.07