1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1457 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICAITION NO. 1458 OF 2001 IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 20497 OF 2001 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant/ Appellant V/s. Kalyanrao J. Patil & Anr. ...Respondents .... Ms.S.P.Manchekar, AGP for the applicant-State. Ms.Jai V. Kanade, Advocate, for the respondents. .... CORAM : J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 8th September, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This application is for condonation of delay in filing the First Appeal. It appears that when the First Appeal Stamp No. 20497 of 2001 was filed, the delay condonation application was not filed but is filed now. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents points out that earlier, First Appeal was dismissed on the ground that sufficient court fee had not been paid and in spite of the conditional order, 2 deficit court fee was not deposited within the stipulated period. Therefore, the First Appeal came to be dismissed. 4. Civil Application No. 1457 of 2009 was filed by the State for payment of court fee and restoration of the appeal. By Order dated 21st January 2009 in the said application, the appeal was directed to be restored subject to payment of cost of Rs.2000/- to the respondent within eight weeks. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that after that order, a cheuqe was issued towards the payment of the cost. However, that cheque was dishonoured and this fact was brought to the notice of the learned AGP by letter dated 9th June 2009. In spite of that, the cost of Rs. 2000/- has not been paid. It means the earlier order dated 21st January 2009 has not been complied and the deficit court fee has not been deposited. It appears that the concerned officers of the applicant has been careless in issuing the cheque without making provision. 3 6. The learned advocate for the respondents strongly opposed this application by filing affidavit of one Kalyanrao Janardhan Patil in reply. 7. On perusal of the dates given in the application, it appears that the judgment was delivered on 10th July 2000, after excluding the time taken in obtaining certified copies of the impugned order and the period for filing appeal would end on 21st September 2000. It appears that without filing the application for certified copy, the District Government Pleader had referred the matter to Law Secretary, for preferring an appeal. On 24th January 2001, the Solicitor and Joint Secretary issued the resolution for filing the appeal and it was received by the District Government Pleader on 8th March 2001. The certified copy was received on 21st April 2001 and the appeal was preferred on 12th June 2001. In the explanation given for the delay, it is contended that the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer was vacant from 1-11-99 to 9-11-2000, 01-05-2001 to 31-08-2001. It appears that the Special Land Acquisition Officer was on 4 duty from 10th November 2000 to 13th January 2001 which was relevant period. It appears that the application for certified copy was already made during that period and within a short time a certified copy was received and the First Appeal was filed. When the appeal is to be filed by the State, decision is required to be taken all decisions at different levels. The State cannot take a decision like a private person and file an appeal immediately. Therefore, delay may occur in filing appeal by the State or the Public Bodies. If these difficulties are not considered and appreciated, it may cause lot of inconvenience and prejudice to the State and the Public exchequer. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the explanation given for the delay is satisfactory. 8. Therefore, the application is allowed. Delay is condoned in filing the Second Appeal. 9. As far as, the cost to be paid to the respondents as per the earlier order, the payment of the cost shall be made within four weeks from this date, failing which concerned Special Land Acquisition 5 Officer No.3, District Solapur shall personally remain present before this Court to explain why action should not be taken against him for contempt of the Court. 10.Application stands disposed of. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)