1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Civil Application No.294 of 1999 In First Appeal (St.) No.3987 of 1998 The State of Maharashtra and another Applicants-appellants versus Sudhakar Narharrao Kanakdande Respondent-claimant With Civil Appln. No. 295 of 1999 In First Appeal (St.) No. 4008 of 1998 The State of Maharashtra and another Applicants-appellants versus Ramdas Venkatrao Surnar Respondent-claimant 2 With Civil Appln. No. 297 of 1999 In First Appeal (St.) No. 3975 of 1998 The State of Maharashtra and another Applicants-appellants versus Keshav Raghunath Devkatte Respondent-claimant --------------- Shri V.D.Rakh, Asstt. Government Pleader for applicants-appellants. Respondents absent, although served. Coram: Shrihari P. Davare, J. Date : November 15, 2010. P. C. 01. Heard learned A.G.P. for the applicants. 02. These are the three applications seeking condonation of delay of 1185 days caused in filing the accompanying respective first appeals. 03. It appears that the impugned judgments and awards were passed on 27.7.1994, but the present applications are silent in respect of the very dates on which the applicants had applied for certified copy thereof and on which date the applicants received the same. Moreover, no satisfactory/plausible reasons have been putforth by the applicants for condonation of delay so also, the said delay appears to be inordinate 3 as well as appears to be willful, deliberate and intentional. 04. Besides that, other grounds stated in the present application for condonation of delay, appear to be administrative grounds. However, official hassle and administrative grounds are no grounds or reasons for condonation of delay and in this context, reliance can be placed on the ratio laid down and observations made by the Division Bench headed by then Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and ors. vs. Vithu Kalya Govari reported at 2008 (6) Mh.L.J. 239, which are to following effect. "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 In law, advantage has accrued to the non-applicants claimants and the same ought not to be withdrawn in a mechanical manner and that too without any sufficient cause being shown by the applicants.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 4 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." 05. Moreover, reliance can also be placed on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by L.Rs. versus Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project, reported at 2008 (6) ALT 38 (SC) , more particularly in paragraph 24 which reads :- " 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 or 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 5 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." 06. In the circumstances, present civil applications bear no substance and same are devoid of any merits and same deserve to be dismissed. 07. In the result, present civil applications stand dismissed. Registration of the First Appeals stands refused. Court Fee be refunded to the applicant as per rules. Rule stands discharged. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) pnd/ca294.99