1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3276 OF 2002 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 22440 OF 1999 Surilal Zinga Pawar ..Applicant VERSUS Arun Harish Shinde & ors. ..Respondents ..... Shri A.N.Sabnis holding for Shri P.M.Shah, Sr.Advocate for the applicant Shri P.C.Mayure holding for Shri S.G.Chapalgaonkar, advocate for respondent no.6. Shri P.B.Patil, advocate for respondent no.2 absent. Respondent nos. 1 and 3 served absent. Application against respondent nos. 4 and 5 dismissed ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 6th November, 2009 PER COURT : 1 Perused. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Heard respective counsel for the parties. 2 2 The applicant has preferred the present application for condonation of delay of 562 days occurred in filing the accompanying First Appeal, challenging the common judgment and award dated 15.1.1998 rendered by learned Joint District Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhule, in M.A.C.P. No. 51 of 1992 awarding compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to the applicant herein. 3 The applicant submits that the compensation awarded to him is very meagre and hence, the applicant intended to file accompanying First Appeal for enhancement of the compensation. The applicant also submits that he is illiterate person and, therefore,he was not aware that appeal ought to have been preferred within the prescribed period of limitation. The applicant further submits that he is very poor and, therefore, time was consumed in arrangement of money to file appeal, which resulted in causing 562 days delay. The applicant submits that the said delay caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal is neither willful nor deliberate nor intentional and prayed that delay of 562 days caused in filing the accompanying appeal be condoned in the interest of justice. 4 Learned counsel for respondent no.6 has opposed the 3 present application vehemently and submitted that the applicant has not explained the delay caused in filing the accompanying appeal properly and satisfactory. Learned counsel for respondent no. 6 also submitted that the delay of 562 days occurred in filing accompanying First Appeal is inordinate and the applicant could have approached the Legal Aid Commitee for assistance, if he had no funds to file the accompanying First Appeal within the period of prescribed limitation. 5 Considering the averments made in the application and considering the rival submissions, it is significant to note that the averments in the application lack the material particulars and the application is silent in respect of date of judgment and award and date of filing application by the applicant for certified copies thereof and also there is no whisper when the applicant received the certified copies of the judgment and award and on which date he preferred the accompanying First Appeal. 6 Apart from that, the delay of 562 days occurred in filing the accompanying First Appeal has not been explained by the applicant properly and satisfactory and the said delay is certainly inordinate and no day-to-day account thereof has been given by the applicant. 4 7 In the said context, reliance can be very well placed, on Division Bench judgment of this Court headed by Honourable Chief Justice reported at 2008(6) Mh.L.J.239 [State of Maharashtra and others vs Vithu Kalya Govari and others] that official hassle is no ground for the condonation of delay, as follows :- “ 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 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.” 5 8 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 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 suggest collusion and fraud but without any basis. We cannot entertain the submission made 6 across the Bar without there being any proper foundation in the pleadings.” 9 In the circumstances, delay of 562 days occurred in filing the accompanying First Appeal cannot be construed as intentional and apparently is inordinate and same has not been explained satisfactorily and properly and, therefore, the present application bears no substance and same deserves to be rejected and accordingly same stands rejected. 10 In view of rejection of Civil Application for condonation of delay, nothing survives in the accompanying First Appeal under Stamp No. 22440 of 1999 and, therefore, registration thereof is refused. Rule is discharged accordingly. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) dbm/ca3276.02