1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.55 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.22266 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ... APPLICANT VERSUS Shri Bhikkan Hirji Patil ... RESPONDENT ----- Shri D.R. Korde , A.G.P. for the applicant Shri R.K. Ashtekar, Advocate for respondent ----- CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 7th November, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Perused. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The applicant/ State has preferred the present application for condonation of delay of 3173 days in filing the accompanying First Appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 5.10.1998, passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Shahada, District Nandurbar in L.A.R. No.18/1998. 3. Learned A.G.P. submits that the reasons for delay have been stated in paragraph Nos.2 to 6 of the present 2 application and the delay occurred in filing the accompanying First Appeal is bonafide and same is not willful, deliberate and intentional. The learned A.G.P. further submits that, the said delay occurred due to procedural grounds and administrative hassles and requested that same be condoned ion the interest of justice. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that there are laches and lapses on the part of applicant at every stage and even the applicant applied for certified copy after the substantial period of 8 to 9 years. As regards the ground of official hassles and administrative grounds, the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon 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) and also on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble 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.). Accordingly, the learned counsel for respondent submitted that official hassles and administrative grounds are no reasons for condonation of delay and further submitted that present application is devoid of any merits and bears no substance and, 3 therefore, same be rejected. 5. Considering the submissions in the present application and also considering the rival contentions of the parties, at the outset, it is material to note that although the judgment and award was passed on 5.10.1998, the applicant applied for the certified copy thereof on 18.7.2007 i.e. almost after the substantial period of 8 ½ years, which itself indicates the laches and lapses on the part of the applicant. Hence, the delay of 3173 days occurred in filing the accompanying First Appeal is not bonaifde and it appears to be willful, intentional and deliberate and it is certainly inordinate. Moreover, the officials hassles and administrative grounds cannot be construed as reaons for condonation of delay and 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 4 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 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 5 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 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/ca55.08