1 Civil Application No.6481 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6481 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.11398 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra and another APPLICANTS VERSUS Ashok Bhagwan Pendharkar RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6483 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.11355 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra and another APPLICANTS VERSUS Balaji Vitthal Chidre and another RESPONDENTS Mrs.R.K.Ladda, learned A.G.P. For applicant/State in both applications. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 25/02/2011 PER COURT : 1. As both these civil applications are preferred by State to condone the delay arises of 692 days against common order and 2 Civil Application No.6481 of 2009 judgement hence these civil applications are require to be disposed of by way of common order. 2. Heard learned A.G.P. According to her, the delay was caused in filing the first appeals challenging the judgment and award passed in Land Acquisition Reference No.895/2002 and Land Acquisition Reference No.896/2002, dated 19/04/2007 by the Civil Judge, S.D. Ahmedpur, Dist.Latur. It is not under dispute that the said judgment and award came to be passed on 19/04/2007. It is stated that application for certified copy of the said judgment was moved on 06/12/2007. Why during the period of 8 months, no application was moved to get the certified copies, is not explained anywhere in the application. Certified copies were ready on 10/12/2007. Thereafter proposal was sent to the Law and Judiciary Department, of which sanction was received immediately. It is stated that on 04/12/2008, appeal was drafted. Inspite of repeated communication to the concerned Department, no copies of the relevant documents were provided to the Office of A.G.P., hence delay was caused in preferring the first appeal. Only the words are used that the delay caused in filing the first appeal is not intentional, but because of administrative difficulties, which are beyond the control of the concerned, hence the delay be condoned. 3. A Division Bench of this Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra and others versus Vithu Kalya Govari and others, reported in 2008(6) Mh.L.J. 239 has observed that explanation of 3 Civil Application No.6481 of 2009 ‘official hassles’ or administrative difficulties can not be regarded as sufficient ground for condonation of delay. This Court has also held that the explanation must be satisfactory. 4. In view of the observations of the Division Bench in the judgment referred supra, it is clear that the administrative difficulties is not a good ground to condone the delay. In the premise, as the delay is not explained satisfactorily, both the applications, sans merits, stand rejected. Court fees, if any paid by the applicant/State, be refunded as per rules. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/FEB. 2011/ca6043-09