IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 697 OF 2009 IN STAMP NUMBER MAIN NO. 2784 OF 2009 CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF GOA AND ANR., ... Applicants Versus MR. SADANAND ALDONKAR ... Respondent Mr. Guru Shirodkar, Government Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. Amey Kakodkar, Advocate for the Respondent. Coram:- R. M. SAVANT, J. Date:- 27th November, 2009 ORAL ORDER : By the above application, the applicant seeks condonation of delay of 175 days in filing the Appeal. The grounds on which the said condonation of delay is sought are mentioned in the application. 2. It is the case of the applicants that the Civil Suit no. 23/2007 filed by the Respondent herein for recovery of an amount due to him in respect of the work carried out by him pursuant to a tender allotted by the Government, was decreed on 28.11.2008. It is further averred that the certified copy was applied on 05.08.2009 and the copy was delivered to the applicants on 18.08.2009. In terms of the date of the said Judgment and Decree, the time for filing the Appeal expired on 26.02.2009. It is further averred in the above application that though the suit was decreed on 28.11.2008, the Advocate for the Applicants nor the Officer of the Applicants was present in Court. The Advocate on record did not inform the Applicants about the Judgment and Decree and returned back the case papers only on 07.05.200 which was the date when the Applicant no.2 received the notice from the Court in the Execution Proceedings. It is further the case of the Applicants that on the same day i.e. on 07.05.2009, the Applicant no.2 processed the file and sent the same to the concerned Assistant Engineer to contact the Advocate on record. Thereafter, on the same day, the Asst. Engineer contacted the Advocate, who was appearing for the Applicants in the said suit and informed him about the filing of the Execution Application. It is the case of the Applicants that it is at the said time that the said Advocate informed the Applicant no.2 that he had ceased to be the Government Pleader and requested the said Asst. Engineer to collect the papers. Thereafter, the said case papers were received by the said Asst. Engineer on 11.06.2009. 3. It is further the case of the Applicants that after the receipt of the papers, the said Asst. Engineer approached the Government for engaging another Advocate to appear in the Execution Application and, accordingly, the case papers were handed over to the said Advocate on 12.05.2009. It is further the case of the Applicants that the Advocate who had been engaged by them to appear in the Execution Application, gave an opinion on 15.06.2009, which was received by the Department on the same day advising the Department to prefer an Appeal against said Judgment and Decree on the grounds mentioned in the said letter. Thereafter, it is the case of the Applicants that on receipt of the said opinion, the file was moved and after having traversed various offices, which involved the legal cell of the PWD Department as well as the office of the Chief Engineer, the file reached the Hon'ble PWD Minister. On 21.07.2009, Hon'ble PWD Minister granted his approval on 01.08.2009. Thereafter on 03.08.2009, the file was allotted to the Government Advocate for filing the Appeal and thereafter the opinion of the Advocate General was obtained. After compiling the necessary papers, the Appeal was filed in this Court on 20.08.2009 resulting in a delay of 175 days. 4. The Application was opposed by the Respondent by filing an affidavit in reply. The affidavit in reply disputed the version as set out by the applicants in the said Application namely that they became aware of the Decree only when they received a notice of the Execution Application on 07.05.2009. The Respondent has mentioned that by letter dated 19.01.2009, the Advocate for the Respondent had forwarded a copy of the Judgment in the Suit and called upon the Executive Engineer to comply with the Decree passed by the Trial Court. The Respondent has thereafter endeavoured to demonstrate the negligence/callousness of the Applicants as also the malafides on the part of the Applicants in preferring the Application. 5. In re-joinder to the said reply filed on behalf of the Respondent, the Applicants have admitted that though the letter dated 19.01.2009 addressed by the Advocate for the Respondent was in fact received by the Office of the Applicants, however, since the Respondent herein had filed two suits being Civil Suit No.23/2007, with which the present application is concerned and Civil Suit No.31/2007, the said letter was erroneously sent to the Asst. Engineer - II, who has his office at a different place and who was dealing with the said Civil Suit No.31/2007 and, in view of the fact that the Decree passed in the Civil Suit No.31/2007 was complied with, the said letter lay in the said papers of the said Civil Suit No.31/2007 and was lying unattended as the Decree passed in the said suit was satisfied and there was no reason for the Applicants to see the papers in the said Suit. It is, therefore, the case of the Applicants in the rejoinder that on account of the said letter being erroneously placed in the papers of the said Civil Suit No.31/2007, which was marked to a different Asst. Engineer, they were not aware of the Decree passed in the said Civil Suit No.23/2007 and became aware only when the notice of the Execution Proceedings were received. The Respondent has filed a sur-rejoinder wherein to which is annexed the affidavit of his Advocate Shri Rodrigues, who has mentioned in the said affidavit that he had in fact had oral discussion with one of the Applicants as also that he had addressed the said letter dated 19.01.2009. 6. The issue, therefore, arises whether the Applicants have shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay of the said 175 days. As held by the Apex Court, from time to time, that a highly pedantic approach in such matters should be eschewed and an approach based on common sense and which furthers the cause of substantial justice should be adopted. The Government Authorities cannot be expected to explain each days delay as a private party may be called upon to do so. However, at the same time, the State cannot abdicate its responsibility to render reasonable grounds to show sufficient cause for inordinate delays in filing the Appeals. No doubt, certain amount of latitude is not impermissible when the State is a party. The expression "sufficient cause" would therefore, have to be construed in a rational and pragmatic manner. It is in this context, one would have to consider whether in the facts of the instant case, the Applicants have discharged the said burden. 7. The principal ground on which the condonation of delay is sought is that the Applicants were not aware of the decreeing of the Suit till 07.05.2009 when they received the notice of the Execution Application filed by the Respondent. There is no explanation as to why the Applicants never made an attempt to keep themselves abreast of the developments in the said Suit when there were financial implications for the State. However, the reason given by the Applicants which was in response to the affidavit in reply filed by the Respondent, in my view, can be a plausible reason for the delay which has occasioned. It is undisputed that the Respondent herein had filed two suits both of which have been decreed and one of which we are concerned with in the present Application. The Applicants have fairly conceded though albeit after the reply has come from the Respondent that they in fact had received the said letter dated 19.01.2009. However, the case of the Applicants that the said letter was erroneously placed in the case papers of the said Civil Suit No.31/2007, appears to be bonafide. The said letter has been annexed to the affidavit in rejoinder filed by the Applicants and the said letter carries an endorsement of the Asst. Engineer - II of the Applicants that the opinion of the Government advocate was sought on priority basis. The case of the Applicants, therefore, cannot be rejected outright and, in my view, the reason mentioned, that the said letter was erroneously placed in the file concerning the case Civil Suit No.31/2007, deserved credence and is required to be accepted. The case of the Applicants, therefore, that they became aware of the Decree passed in the said Suit on 07.05.2009 in turn, therefore, have to be accepted. As held by the Apex Court that the wheels of the Government machinery at times move at a slow pace with pen pushing etc., and that the administration is impersonal and therefore some indulgence would have to be shown to the Applicants in the instant case. 8. In my view, therefore, the reasons that have been mentioned by the Applicants in the above Application for condonation of delay do constitute a sufficient cause for condoning the said delay. However, considering the conspectus of facts narrated above the manner in which the file was handled by the Officers was far from satisfactory. Though time and again it has been observed by Courts that the Government should establish cells so that in matters where Appeals are required to be filed, decision in that behalf can be taken expeditiously. The direction unfortunately remains only on paper and in actual practice archaic modes are still applied where the files are pushed from one Department to the other as the facts of the instant case disclose. The Government Officers/Agencies, have to realize that in the event of delay, a right to the other party accrues and therefore any condonation of delay has a prejudicial effect on the accrued right of the other party. 9. The Suit filed by the Respondent herein has been decreed and it is the case of the Applicants that the Suit itself was not maintainable as it was filed beyond limitation. If that being so, the Officers of the Government including the Applicants ought to have been more vigilant and ought to have proceeded with reasonable despatch. However, the facts speak otherwise and though the reasons as mentioned in the Application are held to be a sufficient cause, in my view, the interest of justice would require that the Respondent herein is suitably compensated for the prejudice that is caused to him. The Civil Application is, therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) on the following conditions: (i) The Applicants to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the Respondent herein within two weeks from date. (ii) The said costs are a condition precedent and only after the Applicants produce evidence by way of a receipt of having paid the said costs to the Respondent that the Registry, would number the First Appeal. (iii) The Principal Secretary of the concerned department, Government of Goa, is directed to inquire into and fix the responsibility for the delay and take appropriate action, including recovery of the costs from the concerned officer or officers. (iv) The Chief Secretary, State of Goa, may also issue a general direction to the concerned Departments so that steps to file Appeals etc., in the higher forum are taken expeditiously. R. M. SAVANT, J. arp/*