IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2166 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO. 3087 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Latur ...Applicant VERSUS Kadaji Baburao Kendre and anr. ...Respondents ----- Smt. A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for applicant/State Application dismissed against respondent no.1 Respondent no.2 absent although served ----- CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 3rd September, 2010 PER COURT :- 1 Heard learned counsel for the applicant/State. 2 This is an application preferred by the applicant/State for condonation of delay of 883 days in filing the accompanying First Appeal. 3 For the reasons stated in the application, it appears that the applicant has failed to explain the delay satisfactorily. Moreover, it also appears that the applicant has not accounted for the said delay properly. (2) 4 Apparently, the grounds put forth by the applicant for condonation of delay appear to be administrative grounds. However, official hassle and administrative grounds are no longer grounds/reasons for condonation of delay. In the said context, reliance can be placed on the ratio laid down and observations made by the Division Bench headed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and others vs Vithu Kalya Govari and others, reported at 2008 (6) Mh.L.J. 239, in which it has been observed 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 In law advantage has accrued to the non- applicants claimants and the same ought not to be withdrawn in a mechanical manner and that too without any sufficient cause being shown by the applicants.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.” (3) 5 Moreover, reliance can also be placed on the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by L.Rs. Vs Exe. Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project and Anr., reported at 2008 (6) ALT 38 (SC), by judgment dated 3.11.2008, in which it is observed in paragraph no.24 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 through a feeble attempt by the learned counsel for the respondent was made to suggest 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 In the circumstances, the present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissed. (4) 7 In the result, present Civil Application stands dismissed. Registration of First Appeal stands refused. Court fee be refunded as per rules. [ SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] dbm/ca2166.08