:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1494 OF 200 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1494 OF 200 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1494 OF 2008 IN IN IN MUNICIPAL APPEAL NO.204 OF 2002 MUNICIPAL APPEAL NO.204 OF 2002 MUNICIPAL APPEAL NO.204 OF 2002 The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr. ...Applicants. v. Jayantilal Shantilal Jobalia ...Respondent. Mr.N.V.Walawalkar Sr.Counsel with Mr.Xavier , advs. for the Applicants. Mr.R.M.Nakhwa i/by Vasant Dhawan , advs. for the Respondent. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 8th August, 2008. DATE: 8th August, 2008. DATE: 8th August, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned senior counsel for the applicants/Municipal Corporation as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. By this application, the applicant seeks condonation of delay of 406 days in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Chief Judge, Small Cause Court in Municipal Appeal No.204 of 2002. It is an appeal challenging the assessment of rateable value of the open land by the Municipal Corporation after the old building on that plot was demolished as rateable value of the open land after demolition was found more than rateable value of the old building, which was required to be demolished. :2: The assessee filed the appeal and the learned Additional Chief Judge by the judgment and order dated 22nd November, 2006 upheld the contention of the respondent/assessee and set aside the assessment made by the Municipal Corporation. The learned Additional Chief Judge also directed that the original rateable value as existed prior to 1.10.1999 of the property be restored with effect from 1.10.1999. There is also a huge difference in the rateable value of the old dilapidated building as it was standing prior to 1.10.1999 and the open buildable plot which is available for the building. According to the applicant, immediately on the next date, application was filed for getting the copy and the certified copy of the judgement was delivered on 9-1-2007. It is contended that in November, 2006, elections were declared and were held on 1-2-2007. For sometime, most of the staff members of the Municipal Corporation were on election duty. Thereafter, matter was considered by the legal Department and taking into consideration the importance of the matter, it was decided to prefer an appeal on 19-4-2007 against the judgment. It is contended that thereafter the Municipal Corporation was required to prefer appeal in a group of 56 matters involving octroi duty wherein large number of circulars were involved. Heavy typing and printing work was required to be done and the Municipal Corporation took a decision to entrust the typing work to outside agency. That decision was taken on 29.11.2007 and then :3: it was referred to the private agency on 17.1.2008. Appeal was filed alongwith this application on 28th February, 2008. Thus, there has been delay of 406 days. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the dispute about the rateable value of the buildable plot is already concluded by the Supreme Court and, therefore, there is no substance in the appeal. However, that question can be looked into at the time of admission of the appeal The learned counsel for the respondent also placed reliance upon certain authorities including Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise Jamshedpur and Others (2008) 3 Supreme Court Excise Jamshedpur and Others (2008) 3 Supreme Court Excise Jamshedpur and Others (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases 70 Cases 70 Cases 70 in support of his contention that when there is abnormal delay, it should not be condoned. However, Their Lordships held that there can not be any strait-jacket formula for accepting or rejecting the explanation furnished for delay caused in taking steps for filing the appeal. That depends upon the facts and circumstances of the each and every case, which need to be considered by the Court. 4. It is true that there has been long delay of 406 days but at the same time in such matter public bodies like Municipal Corporation of Mumbai having large multifarious activities and responsibilities can not be compared with an individual, who can take a decision immediately and on the spot. In the appeal very :4: important question is involved, which may be of interest to the public at large and which is also important for the revenue of the Municipal Corporation. In my considered opinion, reasons given by the Municipal Corporation about delay in filing the appeal are satisfactory and, therefore, it is necessary to condone the delay in the interest of justice. 5. Application is allowed. Delay is condoned. Appeal be registered subject to other office objections, if any. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)