1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5409 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.10148 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ... APPLICANT VERSUS Bapu s/o Eshwar Gavane & anr. ... RESPONDENTS ----- Shri K.B. Choudhari, Addl. G.P.. for the applicant Shri S.L. Bhapkar, Advocate for respondents (absent) ----- CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 7th November, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Perused. Heard learned A.G.P. for the applicant. 2. The applicant/ State has preferred the present application for condonation of delay of 636 days in filing the accompanying First Appeal, challenging the judgment and award dated 22.2.2005 passed by learned 7th Adhoc Additional District Judge, Beed in L.A.R. No.446/2001. 2 3. Learned Additional Government Pleader submits that, after passing the said judgment and award on 22.2.2005, the applicant applied for the certified copy thereof on 1.3.2005, which were ready for delivery on 1.7.2005. The applicant collected the said copy on the same day and thereafter proposal was submitted to Law & Judiciary Department for sanction through District Government Pleader. Accordingly Law & Judiciary Department sanctioned the proposal and forwarded the same to the office of Government Pleader on 12.8.2005 and Government Pleader’s office assigned the matter to concerned A.G.P. on 12.8.2005 for drafting the First Appeal. Thereafter the concerned A.G.P. drafted the First Appeal after going through the record, however, since the court fee was received on 13.2.2007, the appeal came to be filed on 20.6.2007 and, therefore, resulting into delay of 636 days in filing the accompanying First Appeal. The applicant submits that, the said delay is bonafide and same is not willful, deliberate and intentional and requested that same be condoned in the interest of justice. 4. Considering the averments made in the present application and also considering the submissions advanced by learned Additional Government Pleader Shri K.B. Choudhari, at the outset, although the applicant received the certified copy on 20.6.2007, i.e. almost after about one year and 11 months and the 3 said delay has not been explained by the applicant satisfactorily. Moreover, although the typed copies of the judgment and order were prepared and submitted in the office of Government Pleader on 13.2.2007, the accompanying First Appeal came to be filed on 20.6.2007 i.e. after almost about four months and the applicant has failed to explain the said delay. 5. Hence, it appears that the delay of 636 days caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal is not bonafide and same is certainly inordinate and, therefore, same cannot be condoned. Reliance can be very well placed on the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court, headed by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice in the judgment reported at 2008(6) Mh.L.J. 239 (State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Vithu Kalya Govari and others), in which it has been held as under : “ The public authority or a department is not expected to be negligent or to take no action for years and let the matters become barred by time surely because of its negligence and inaction. The applicants in their application have stated that delay occurred because of “official hassle” and approval at different levels. This can hardly justify condonation of delay. In law advantage has accrued to the non-applicants claimants and the same ought not to be withdrawn in a mechanical manner and that too without any sufficient cause being shown by the 4 applicants. Despite, awards/ judgments of the Courts, which have attained finality, the claimants are not permitted to receive compensation that itself would be a sufficient prejudice to their rights. Before the delay can be condoned and claimants can be subjected to a prolonged litigation, the onus to show sufficient cause lies upon the applicant State. For the reason that the applicants have failed to show sufficient or reasonable cause (in fact they have shown no cause) for the condonation of delay, it is declined.” 6. Moreover, recently the Apex Court, in the case reported at 2008(6) ALT 38(SC) (Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by L.Rs. Vs. Exe. Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project and Anr.) by judgment dated 3.11.2008, held that it is the duty of the applicants though they are Government authorities, to explain the delay with cogent reasons and reliance can be very much placed on the observations made in paragraph No.24 thereof which reads as under : “24. 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 5 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 provided 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 sugget 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.” 7. In the circumstances, the present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and hence, deserves to be rejected and the same stands rejected accordingly. Registration of First appeal stands refused. [SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] fmp/ca5409.07