1 Civil Application No.501 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.501 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.13289 OF 2003 The State of Maharashtra and others APPLICANTS VERSUS Prabhakar Pitambar Patil and others RESPONDENTS Mr.K.G.Patil, learned A.G.P for State Mr.C.P.Patil, learned counsel for respondents. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.503 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.13288 OF 2003 The State of Maharashtra and others APPLICANTS VERSUS Laxman Nathu Chaudhari and another RESPONDENTS Mr.K.G.Patil, learned A.G.P for State Mr.C.P.Patil, learned counsel for respondents. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.505 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.13286 OF 2003 2 Civil Application No.501 of 2009 The State of Maharashtra and others APPLICANTS VERSUS Prabhakar Pitambar Patil and others RESPONDENTS Mr.K.G.Patil, learned A.G.P for State Mr.C.P.Patil, learned counsel for respondents. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 25/02/2011 PER COURT : 1. As all these civil applications are preferred by State to condone the delay of 734 days arises against the common judgment and order, hence all these civil applications are require to be disposed of by way of common order. 2. Heard learned A.G.P. for applicants in all these civil applications. According to learned A.G.P., the delay was caused in filing the first appeals as mentioned in para no.2 and 3 that even though the proposals were received from the Law and Judiciary Department in the year 2000, but because of pressure of work in the Office of Government Pleader, the appeals could not be filed within time. It is further alleged that the proposals were received without certified copies of the orders, which are to be challenged by way of first appeals. All these are official approvals at different lavels in preferring the appeals in time. 3 Civil Application No.501 of 2009 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 ‘official hassles’ 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 ‘official hassles’ is not a good ground to condone the delay. In the premise, as the delay is not explained satisfactorily, all 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/ca501-09