1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6544 OF 2006 IN SECOND APPEAL ST.NO.12111 OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra, Through The Collector, Beed and others. ...APPLIANTS. VERSUS Sheikh Rashid Ahmed Habibuddin, R/o-Patrud, Tq-Majalgaon, Dist-Beed ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr. M.L. Dharashive A.G.P. for Applicants. None present for Respondents. ... CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 8TH JUNE, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr. Dharashive, learned A.G.P. for the Applicants. Though the Respondent is served, no one appeared on behalf of him when the matter called out for 2 hearing. 2. Present Civil Application preferred by the original Respondents for condonation of delay of 1782 days in preferring Second Appeal against the Judgment and decree dated 28 th August, 2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Beed, in Regular Civil Appeal No.144 of 1997. 3. Learned A.G.P. Submitted that there is delay in preferring present Second Appeal for want of certified copies from the concerned department. He submitted that the office of the Government Pleader, High Court, Bench at Aurangabad received the proposal for filing present Second Appeal from Law and Judiciary Department on 8 th January, 2003 and thereafter they called upon the concerned officer to provide certified copies of the Judgment and decree and requisite documents for filing Second Appeal. Learned A.G.P. Submitted that the office of the Government Pleader received certified copies of the Judgment and decree in the month of May, 2006 during the vacation. In support of his submission, he pointed out that in additional affidavit dated 26 th February, 2009 applicant explained the delay in procuring the certified copies from the concerned department. 3 4. It is to be noted that Lower Appellate Court passed the Judgment and decree on 28 th August, 2002 and thereafter the District Government Pleader applied for certified copies on 29 th August, 2002 and same were ready for delivery on 21 st September, 2002. The District Government Pleader submitted proposal for preferring Second Appeal in this Court to the Law and Judiciary Department on 20 th October, 2002 and thereafter the Law and Judiciary Department passed resolution dated 8 th January, 2003 for filing present Second Appeal in this Court and same was received in the office of the Government Pleader on 8 th January, 2003. Thereafter the office of the Government Pleader by their letters dated 3 rd October, 2003, 13 th November, 2003, 2 nd April, 2004, 9 th July, 2004 and 9 th March, 2004 called upon the concerned authority to submit the certified copies of the Judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court. Same were received in the office of the Government Pleader on 18 th May, 2006 and present Second Appeal came to be filed in this Court on 30 th June, 2006. Even after receipt of certified copies, there is delay of more than one month. There is no plausible explanation for this delay. Learned A.G.P. Submitted that there is delay in filing the 4 present Second Appeal for want of Court Fees. In the present case, the Appellant paid a sum of Rs.30/- towards Court Fees. Therefore, that cannot be the ground for condonation of 1287 days delay. 5. Recently the Apex Court in the matter of Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by Lrs. vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and another in Civil Appeal No.6414  6417 of 2008 by Judgment dated 3/11/2008, held that it is the duty of the Applicant though they are Government authorities, to explain the delay with cogent reasons. Para 25 of the said unreported Judgment reads as under: "25. 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 5 proved 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 across the Bar without there being any proper foundation in the pleadings." 6. Considering the above mentioned facts and circumstances, I do not find any substance in the present Civil Application for condonation of delay and the same is dismissed. 7. In view of the dismissal of Civil Application for condonation of delay in filing Second Appeal itself, nothing survive for consideration in Second Appeal St. No.12111 of 2006 and registration of the same is rejected. (K.K. TATED) JUDGE. asb/JUN09/ca6544.06