1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION ST.NO.11248 OF 2009 IN ARBITRATION APPEAL NO.9 OF 2009 Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation, through the Executive Engineer .. Applicant Versus M/s.M.V.Patel & Co. and Anr. .. Respondents Mr.V.D.Patil for appellant Mr.Nitin Thakkar, Senior Advocate i/b. Ms.Manjiri Parasnis for respondents. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 2nd May 2009. P.C. . This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The delay is of 512 days. 2. The Applicant has stated that respondent No.2 to this application is the Arbitrator and respondent No.1 is the claimant contractor. 2 3. The matter arises out of a challenge to the Award dated 9th February 2001 of second respondent. This award was challenged by filing a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act but the challenge failed. That is how, this instant appeal. The award was upheld by the Court below on 30th July 2007 but the Advocate appearing for the applicant failed to inform the Executive Engineer of the applicant about the decision. In fact, when applicant’s Executive Engineer raised a query with regard to some other matters, that it was revealed to them that the challenge to the award has failed. This was some time in February 2008. Thereafter, the steps were taken to apply for certified copy of the order of the Court below and to seek legal opinion. The legal opinion was sought and after the same was received in writing some time in July 2008 that it was decided to file the subject appeal but the applicant was awaiting sanction of 3 funds. The sanction of funds took its own time and after the necessary directions to issue the same, this appeal has been lodged. 4. Mr.Patil, appearing for the applicant, therefore, submits that this Court should take Judicial Notice of the Administrative delays and liberally apply the principles laid down in the Supreme Court decisions. In other words, the words "sufficient cause" be liberally construed in the peculiar facts of this case so that the delay can be condoned. He relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2005) 3 S.C.C. 752 (State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok AO And Ors.) and an order passed by Division Bench of this Court in cases of this very applicant. 5. On the other hand, Mr.Thakkar learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 opposed this application. His contention is that the application does not show bonafides inasmuch 4 as, if the legal adviser is responsible for not informing the applicant about the disposal of the application under section 34, then, he cannot be approached for seeking an opinion whether the order deserves to be challenged in appeal or not. All steps taken to approach this very legal Adviser and seek his advice for filing the instant appeal does not suggest that the applicants were prevented by any sufficient cause in filing this appeal. The reasons of administrative and technical difficulties do not appear to be genuine, inasmuch as, the application does not set out any other difficulties, save and except the time taken by the Legal Adviser. He, therefore, submits that the words "sufficient cause" should not be construed so liberally in favour of the applicant as that would enable them to obtain special treatment from this Court. Merely because it is a Statutory Authority does not mean that it has to be treated differently from a private 5 litigant. Equitable grounds do not permit this Court to brush aside Law of Limitation. Mr.Thakkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent, has relied upon decisions of this Court reported in A.I.R. 1998 Bom.176 (Laxman N. Divekar Vs. State of Maharashtra) and a decision of Supreme Court reported in 1997 (7) S.C.C. 556 (P.K.Ramchandran Vs. State of Kerala & Anr) which has been followed by this Court in the learned Single Judge’s decision. 6. I have perused the decisions cited by both Counsel. The principles are too well settled to be restated. The words "Sufficient Cause" have to be construed liberally soas to advance cause of justice and not take away from the litigant an opportunity to have an adjudication on merits. At the same time, no special treatment need to be given merely because one of the parties is State or Statutory Authority. The Supreme Court has always 6 emphasised that Public Interest demands that in claims of Statutory Authorities, public funds are at stake. Public Funds have to be recovered soas to further public interest. The recovery by State and Statutory Authorities is a slow moving process. Decisions have to be taken at various levels before deciding to challenge an adverse order. Therefore, time consumed is more than in the case of private litigant. It is for this reason and not to defeat larger public interest that the words have been construed liberally. Applying these principles to the facts of the present case, I am satisfied that the reasons as set out by the applicants in their Civil Application make out sufficient cause for not approaching this Court in time. It is not that the Executive Engineer can take a decision on his own. He has to consult several other officers in the Hierarchy. Legal opinions have also to be obtained. This process takes time. Merely because the very same Advocate has been 7 approached by the applicant does not mean that this application lacks bonafides. It is not as if the applicant was prevented from approaching the same Legal Adviser. If the applicant thought it fit to approach him since he had appeared before the Court below, does not mean that this Court should disbelieve their version. More so, when the correspondence is also placed on record. In these circumstances, applying the very principles which have been laid down by the Supreme Court, I am of the opinion that the delay deserves to be condoned in the larger interest of justice but by imposing cost on the applicant. 7. In the result, civil application is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a), subject to paying cost quantified at Rs.25,000/- to the respondent No.1 within a period of six weeks from today. If the costs are paid and compliance reported, office to number the appeal and place it for admission thereafter. If no compliance is 8 reported, appeal to stand dismissed without any further reference to Court. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)