1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1575 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.1548 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ... APPLICANT VERSUS Gopikishan s/o Gulabchand Dhoot . ... RESPONDENT ----- Shri K.J. Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for the applicant Respondent absent in spite of service. ----- 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 3024 days in filing the accompanying First Appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 22.7.1998, rendered by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Latur in Land Acquisition Reference No.269/1992. 2 3. The applicant contends that, after passing the said judgment and award, the Government Pleader’s Office, District Court, Latur forwarded his opinion to Law & Judiciary Department, Aurangabad and after scrutiny, Law & Judiciary Department forwarded the proposal without certified copy of judgment and award for filing appeal by resolution dated 24.11.1998. On receipt of the said proposal, the matter was assigned to A.G.P. for drafting. However, for long period First Appeal was not drafted and as such, appeal was not filed. 4. The applicant submits that, in the month of January/ February 2003, an enquiry was conducted regarding First Appeals to be filed and First Appeals in respect of which registration was refused for not removing the office objections and at that time, file of the present First Appeal was traced out and thereafter reallotted to another A.G.P. for drafting purpose. However, the certified copies of the judgment and aware were not received and, therefore, same were called by the Government Pleader’s office, High Court Bench at Aurangabad by fax dated 8.12.1998, 11.10.1999, 12.10.1999, 23.9.2003 and 9.11.2006. Pursuant to the said fax messages, the certified copy of judgment and decree was received on 7.12.2006 and deficit court fees was received on 13.3.2006 and accordingly, accompanying First 3 Appeal came to be filed on 29.1.2007, resulting into delay of 3024 days and applicant submits that the said delay is not willful, deliberate and intentional and, therefore, same be condoned in the interest of justice. 5. After considering the averments in the present application and the submissions advanced by learned A.G.P., it is a matter of record that although the judgment and award was passed on 22.7.1998, the applicant applied for the certified copies after a pretty substantial period i.e. on 24.11.2006 and applicant has miserably failed to explain the said delay. Moreover, although the certified copy of the judgment and decree was received on 7.12.2006 and deficit court fee was received on 13.3.2006 by the applicant, the accompanying First Appeal came to be filed on 29.1.2007 and the said delay of almost 8/9 months has not been explained by the applicant satisfactorily. 6. Hence, it is apparent that the delay of 3024 days occurred in filing the accompanying First Appeal is not bonafide and same appears to be willful, deliberate and intentional land certainly said delay is inordinate and, therefore, same cannot be condoned in the interest of justice. 7. Reliance can be very well placed on the observations 4 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 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.” 8. Moreover, recently the Apex Court, in the case reported at 2008(6) ALT 38(SC) (Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by L.Rs. 5 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 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.” 6 9. 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/ca1575.07