1 Civil Appln. No.4654.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4654 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 4913 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra and others .. .. Appellants Versus Shaikh Habib S/o Shaikh Mirtija.. Respondents ... Shri T.S.Lodhe,AGP for Appellant. None for the respondent. .... CORAM : K. K. TATED, J. DATE : 13TH DECEMBER, 2010. PER COURT: 1. Heard learned A.G.P. for the applicants. 2. This Civil Application is preferred by the Appellant-State of Maharashtra for condonation of 938 days delay in preferring the appeal against the Judgment and Award dated 27th April, 2007, passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-2, Ambajogai, District Beed, in the Land Acquisition Reference 2 Civil Appln. No.4654.10 NO.20 of 2005. 3. Mr. Lodhe, learned AGP submits that the Reference Court passed Judgment and Award on 27th April, 2007. The District Government Pleader applied for certified copies on 12th March, 2008 and same was ready for delivery on the same date. Thereafter, District Government Pleader forwarded his proposal to the Law and Judiciary Department for filing Appeal. On the basis of proposal received from District Government Pleader, Law and Judiciary Department accord sanction on 08th May, 2008 and forwarded letter to the office of Government Pleader, High Court Bench at Aurangabad. After receipt of this sanction from Law and Judiciary Department Office, Government Pleader alloted the matter to the concerned A.G.P. for drafting on 09th May,2008. Thereafter, office of the Government Pleader,Aurangabad vide letter 23rd June, 2008 to the concerned Authorities i.e. Special Land Acquisition Officer called upon to provide copies of Judgment and Award and other papers. The office 3 Civil Appln. No.4654.10 of the Government Pleader received the Certified copies of Judgment and Award on 01st October, 2008 and other papers on 04th January,2010. Thereafter, they filed present Appeal in this Court on 18th February,2010. 4. The learned AGP submits that applicant-State have good chance of success in the appeal. The learned AGP further submits that as it remain on the part of the concerned officers to forward the certified copies of Judgment and Award and typed copies of Judgment and other papers immediately, it remain on their part to file the present appeal within time. He further submits that in the interest of justice delay caused in preferring the appeal be condoned. 5. It is to be noted that in the entire Civil Application the applicant failed to disclose the delay in preferring the Appeal. When they applied to the Certified Copies of Judgment and Award and when they received the same is also not disclosed 4 Civil Appln. No.4654.10 in the Civil Application. They failed to explain the delay from date of Judgment and Award dated 27th April, 2007 to the date of applying certified copies i.e. 12.03.2008. Also since 08th May, 2008 i.e. when office of Government Pleader Aurangabad received the letter from Law and Judiciary Department for filing the Appeal. They also failed to disclose the delay when they received the certified copies of Judgment and Award from Special Land Acquisition Officer on 1st October, 2008 till date of filing present Appeal i.e. 18th February 2010. 6. Our High Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Vithu Kalya Govari and others reported in 2008(5) Bom.C.R, 323, held that if explanation given in the application is without sufficient cause same be dismissed. Para No.12 of the Judgment reads as under: “12. Before these files are consigned to record room, the Courts cannot help 5 Civil Appln. No.4654.10 but notice that most of the appeals filed on behalf of the State are barred by time and the delay normally is inordinate. They suffer from defect of inordinate delay. Normally, it is expected of the State, in the modern times and with modern amenities and infra- structure, to govern its affairs to the much expected standards. It hardly stands to reason that most of the appeals filed by the State, particularly in land acquisition matters, should be barred by time. They are filed after much delay and normally after considerable delay which remains unexplained and is ex facie unjustified. Filing of appeal within limitation is an exception but filing appeals barred by time is the rule. Filing appeal in a mechanical manner beyond the period of limitation has become a rule. This needs to be checked by the concerned authorities at the earliest. Unreasonable delay on the part of the concerned authority in completion of execution proceedings, disbursement of compensation, determination of compensation and 31 then in filing legal proceedings 6 Civil Appln. No.4654.10 include the appeals invites twin disadvantages that are opposed to public policy and even good governance. Firstly, even in good cases because of inordinate and unexplained delay, the Court may decline to entertain the appeals. Secondly, the liability of statutory interest increases every passing day which burdens the public exchequer. Both these adverse rigors could be avoided by timely and co- ordinate actions. The authorities are required to have a more practical and pragmatic approach to provide solution to this problem. The inordinate delays occurring from inaction or non- co-operation of the departments, as is demonstrated by the facts of the present cases, needs to be corrected and it will be desirable to fix the responsibility of the erring officer/official. The concept of public accountability for default of performance of statutory and public duties relatable to the powers vested in the authorities under the Act or other administrative authorities, is squarely applicable. In the case of Mahender Kumar vs. Land Acquisition 7 Civil Appln. No.4654.10 Collector (2006) 5 AD 420, the Court after discussing various judgments of the Supreme Court in great detail held that actions of administrative authorities are accountable and doctrine of full pay and credit is applicable in discharge of their duties. Their actions, besides being open to judicial review, would attract judicial chasticism if there is complete negligence and non-cooperation in functioning of the authority merely in furtherance to statutory powers. The doctrine of public accountability would require authorities to act timely and be responsible for their acts. Development of law which has even extended to which the State is liable to compensate for loss or injury suffered by a citizen due to arbitrary action of employees of the State. Reference can be made to the case of Lucknow Development Authority vs. M. K. Gupta, (1994) I SCC 243. In the case in hand, we have already noticed that there is not even an iota of explanation rendered for complete non- cooperation and inordinate delay of more than two years. In fact, in one 8 Civil Appln. No.4654.10 case, there is not even an indication as to what steps were taken with effect from 29th June 2005 to 3rd March 2007 i.e. for nearly two years in C.A. No. 3200 of 2007 while with effect from 24th June 2005 to 15th May 2007 in C.A. No. 5422 of 2008, there is not even an averment in that action or step was taken by any concerned authority during this long period which ultimately resulted in delay of more than 2 years and 45 days in filing of these appeals. Somebody has to own this responsibility. It is expected of the competent authority to fix responsibility of the erring officer/officials and to provide proper guidelines. Thus, while dismissing these Civil Applications/ Appeals, we feel duty bound to issue certain directions to the Respondent State. Thus, the following directions are issued : (a) The State Government shall constitute a Committee presided over by the Chief Secretary of the State, which shall issue guidelines to ensure that appeals on behalf of the State in 9 Civil Appln. No.4654.10 land acquisition matters are filed within the prescribed period of limitation. (b) Under the directions/guidelines issued through appropriate Government Resolution, complete time frame should be provided for applying and/or receiving certified copies, preparation of appeals, sanctioning of requisite funds, drawing up and filing of appeals. (c) These guidelines should also provide for due co-operation and co-ordination between different Departments of the State Government. (d) Concerned authorities may also examine constituting a `centralised nodal office' to ensure timely filing of appeals in the High Court so as to avoid any consequences adverse to the interest of the State including burdening the public exchequer. (e) The guidelines so framed shall also introduce the principle of public accountability and answerability or 10 Civil Appln. No.4654.10 inaction/action of various authorities in the State hierarchy in such cases and for inordinate delay in filing the present cases, the State Government shall fix responsibility and take action in accordance with law. ” 7. Considering explanation given in the present Civil Application, I am of the opinion that the applicant-State failed to disclose sufficient cause for condonation of 938 days delay in preferring the Appeal against the impugned Judgment and Award dated 27th April,2007 passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference No. 20 of 2005. Thus the Civil Application is dismissed. Sd/- [K. K. TATED, J.] MTK. 11 Civil Appln. No.4654.10