1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10013 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO. 17884 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant VERSUS Shivdhar Sadhu Patil ...Respondent W I T H CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 10014 OF 2008 in F.C.ST.NO. 17888 OF 2008; 10015 OF 2008 in F.C.ST.NO. 17886 OF 2008; AND 10016 OF 2008 in F.C.ST.NO. 17882 OF 2008; ----- Shri S.K.Tambe, A.G.P. for applicant/State in all Civil Applications. Sole respondent served – absent in Civil Application Nos. 10013, 10014 and 10016 of 2008 Respondent nos. 1 and 4 served – absent and Respondent nos. 2 and 3 reported to be dead and notices received unserved in Civil Application No. 10015 of 2008. ----- CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 14th September, 2010 2 PER COURT :- 1 Heard learned counsel for the applicants. 2 These are four applications preferred by the applicants for condonation of delay of 935 days in filing the accompanying First Appeals. 3 For the reasons stated in the applications, it appears that the applicants have failed to explain the delay satisfactorily. Moreover, it also appears that the applicants have not accounted for the delay properly. 4 Apparently, the grounds put forth by the applicants 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 :- 3 “ 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 In law advantage has accrued to the non- applicants claimants and the same ought not to be withdrawn in a mechanical manner and that too without any sufficient cause being shown by the applicants.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. “ 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 4 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 applications bear no substance and same are devoid of any merits and same deserve to be dismissed. 7 In the result, present Civil Applications 5 stand dismissed. Registration of First Appeals stands refused. Court fee be refunded as per rules. [SHRIHARI P.DAVARE,J.] dbm/ca10013.08