1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. C.A. No.1220/2008 in LPA No. 225/2007 The State of Maharashtra and others ... vs. Bharat Rajaram Meshram and 18 others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE & R.V.MORE,JJ. RESERVED ON : 22nd February, 2008. PRONOUNCED ON :26th February, 2008. Heard Mr. N. Sambre, learned G. P. for the applicant, Mr. S.G. Jagtap, learned Special Counsel for the appellants and Mr. P.G. Madkholkar, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 4 to 19. By this application, the applicant seeks recall of that part of the order dated 30.8.2007 passed by this Court disposing of C.A. No. 5577 of 2007 to the extent it directs the appellants to recover the amount from the person responsible for delay in filing the appeal. The appellants filed the above Letters Patent Appeal challenging the judgment dated 5.9.2005 passed in Writ 2 Petition No. 4492/2005 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court beyond the period of limitation. The delay was substantial. In terms of the said order, inquiry was ordered which has been held by the Secretary, Law & Judiciary Department, State of Maharashtra, Mumbai and the responsibility for delay has been fixed on the applicant and the applicant has been asked to pay amount of Rs. 9000/- which has already been deposited by the appellants by way of costs awarded in terms of order dated 30.8.2007. According to Mr. Sambre, the applicant who is working as Assistant Government Pleader at Nagpur was contacted to file an appeal against order passed by learned Single Judge. According to the applicant, the issue was covered by the judgment given by the Division Bench of this Court and, therefore, he took some time to study the matter. In the mean time, the Government decided to engage Shri S.G. Jagtap to file Letters Patent Appeal on behalf of the appellants and an appeal was filed. According to Mr. Sambre, there is no 3 negligence on the part of the applicant and the delay was on account of the fact that, according to the applicant, the issue involved in the petition was covered by the judgment given by the Division Bench of this Court against the applicant and as such he took some time to study the matter. In support of the application, the applicant has filed an affidavit giving the details as to the steps taken by him after he was contacted to challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Mr. Sambre submitted that having regard to the averments made in the application, it would be just and proper to exonerate the applicant from payment of costs inasmuch as there is no negligence on his part. Mr. Jagtap, learned Special Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Madkholkar learned counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2, 4 to 19 submitted that they have no objection if the order is recalled to the extent it holds the applicant responsible for payment of costs. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and 4 having perused the records, we are satisfied that the explanation offered by the applicant deserves to be accepted. The applicant cannot be attributed want of bonafides or negligence in prosecuting the matter. Having regard to the facts which have been placed before us in the application filed by the applicant, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice that part of the order dated 30.8.2007 insofar it directs the payment of costs by the person responsible for the delay deserves to be recalled and is accordingly recalled. Moreover, the appellants have already deposited costs in terms of order dated 30.8.2007. For the reasons aforesaid, the application is allowed. The order dated 30.8.2007 insofar as it directs recovery of the costs from the person responsible for the delay is recalled. Application stands disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE MLA