1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9355 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 18041 OF 2009 Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation Latur .. .. Applicant Versus Pratap Tukaram Patil and others .. .. Respondents Smt. Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri S. B. Gastgar, Advocate for the Respondents No. 1 to 17. Shri K. G. Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 18. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 14TH OCTOBER, 2009. ORAL ORDER [Per B. R. Gavai, J. ] : 1. This is an application for condonation of delay. The applications are vehemently opposed by Shri Gastgar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents/claimants. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants relies on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Executive Engineer Jalgaon Medium Project reported in 2008 (6) B.C.R. 513. He further submits that, there is no special provision in law which provides for a separate treatment to the appeals filed by the State 2 Government and that the parameters for condoning the delay which are applicable to private individuals are also equally applicable to the appeals filed by the State Government. 2. No doubt that the law for condoning the delay in an appeal filed by the State Government is the same as is for filing an appeal by private individuals. However, by judicial pronouncement now it is settled law that, some sort of latitude has to be given to the appeal filed by the Government or its authorities. It is a common knowledge that, whereas in private cases the decisions are taken by individuals, in the matters pertaining to the State Government it is collective decision which has to pass through various stages. The Apex Court in the case of G. Ramegowda, Major v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, reported in AIR 1988 Supreme Court 897 in its paragraph No. 8 has observed as under : "8. In litigations to which Government is a party there is yet another aspect which, perhaps, cannot be ignored. If appeals brought by Government are lost for such defaults, no person is individually affected; but what, in the ultimate analysis, suferrs is public interest. The decisions of Government are collective and institutional decisions and do not share the characteristics of decisions of private individuals. The law of limitation is, no doubt, the same for a private citizen as for Governmental authorities. Government, like any other litigant must take responsibility for the acts or 3 omissions of its officers. But a somewhat different complexion is imparted to the matter where Government makes out a case where public interest was shown to have suffered owing to acts of fraud or bad faith on the part of its officers or agents and where the officers were clearly at cross-purposes with it." 3. In the present case, we find that the appellant has good case on merits. We find that, if the appeal is rejected on ground of limitation, the ultimate loss would be to the public exchequer. The reasoning given is that the appellant was not a party to the proceeding before the Reference Court and after coming to know about award passed in reference, the machinery was set in motion which resulted in the delay. We find that, in the present case the delay is entitled to be condoned. The application is therefore allowed. The delay is condoned. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ B. R. GAVAI, J.] bsb/Oct. 09