1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3410 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.6977 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra & anr. ... APPLICANTS VERSUS Walmik Nivrutti Jadhav ... RESPONDENT ----- Shri K.B. Choudhari, Addl.G.P. for the applicants Shri S.L. Bhapkar, Advocate for respondent (absent) ----- CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 7th November, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Perused. Heard learned Addl. G.P. for the applicant. 2. The applicant/ State has preferred the present application for condonation of delay of 578 days in filing the accompanying First Appeal challenging the common judgment and award dated 21.4.2005, rendered by learned 6th Adhoc Additional District Judge, Beed, awarding compensation amount to the original claimants. 3. The applicant submits that, after passing the 2 impugned judgment and order on 21.4.2005, the applicant applied for certified copy on 25.4.2005 which were ready for delivery on 18.6.2005 and applicant received the said copies on the same day. Thereafter the proposal was submitted to Law & Judiciary Department for sanction through the office of District Government Pleader. Accordingly Law & Judiciary Department sanctioned the proposal and forwarded to the office of Government Pleader on 12.8.2005. The Government Pleader assigned the matter to concerned A.G.P. for drafting the First Appeal on 16.8.2005. Accordingly, the First Appeal came to be drafted and it was filed on 13.4.2007 since the typed copies of judgment and order were submitted to the office of Government Pleader on 13.2.2007, which resulted into delay of 578 days in filing the First Appeal. The applicant submits that, the said delay is bonafide and occurred due to procedural aspects and the same is not willful, deliberate and intentional and, therefore, same be condoned in the interest of justice. 4. After considering the averments in the present application and submissions, it is apparently clear that although the matter was assigned to the concerned A.G.P. on 16.8.2005, the applicant has not explained why the accompanying First Appeal came to be filed on 13.4.2007 which is after substantial delay of 578 days and the said delay has not been explained 3 satisfactorily. Besides that, although the certified copies were collected by the applicant on 18.6.2006, it is nowhere explained why the Government Pleader’s office received the said copies on 13.2.2007 i.e. almost after substantial period of one and a half year and the said delay has not been explained by the applicant satisfactorily. 5. Apart from that, delay occurred due to procedural aspects is no grould for the condonation of delay. Hence, it appears that, delay caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal is not bonaifde and same is willful, intentional and deliberate and certainly it is inordinate and hence, same cannot be condoned. 6. 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 4 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.” 7. 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 5 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.” 8. 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/ca3410.07