1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10978 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL (Stamp) No.33208 OF 2004 The State of Maharashtra, Appellant/orig. through the Collector, Respondent Osmanabad. versus Bhaskar Eknath Mulik Respondents/ and another. Resp.No.1 orig. claimant. ------ Smt.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for the applicant. Shri A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate, for Respondent No.1. Coram : Shrihari P. Davare, J. Date : 27th August, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard learned learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application preferred by the State for condonation of delay of 3783 days caused in filing accompanying first appeal which is on stamp number 33208 of 2004, challenging the judgment and award dated 28.4.1994 rendered by the learned learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad, in L.A.R. No.291 of 1991. 2 3. Learned Counsel for Respondent invited my attention to the fact that Civil Application No. 10977 of 2004 in First Appeal (St.) No.33265 of 2004 and Civil Application No. 10979 of 2004 in First Appeal (St.) No. 33263 of 2004 arising out of the same common judgment have been dismissed by this court on 23.6.2008. 4. Moreover, reliance can also be placed on the observations made by Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and others vs. Vithu Kalya Govari and others, 2008 (6) Mh.L.J. 239, to the effect that official hassle is no ground for condonation of delay, as well as on the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil vs. Exe. Engineer, Jalgaon medium Project, 2008 (6) ALT 38 (SC), to the effect that the Government authorities have to explain the delay with cogent reasons. In this context, learned Counsel for Respondent has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on P.K.Ramchandran vs. State of Merala and another, (1997) 7 S.C.C. 556. 5. In the circumstances, present application bears no substance and the same is devoid of any merits 3 as the said inordinate delay has not been explained satisfactorily and, therefore, the application deserves to be dismissed. 6. Present application, therefore, stands dismissed. (Shrihari P. Davare, J.) pnd/ca10978.04