1 ca16158.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.16158 OF 2010 (FOR DELAY) WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.16160 OF 2010 (FOR STAY) IN FIRST APPEAL (st.) NO. 30730 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.16163 OF 2010 (FOR DELAY) WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16164 OF 2010 (FOR STAY) IN FIRST APPEAL (st.)NO. 30742 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.16166 OF 2010 (FOR DELAY) WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.16165 OF 2010 (FOR STAY) IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) 30749 of 2010 2 ca16158.10 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Order. Corum : Shrihari P. Davare, J. Date : 15.02.2011. Shri T.S. Lodhe, A.G.P. for applicants-appellants. Respondents are absent, although served. ------ 1. Heard Shri T.S. Lodhe, learned A.G.P. for the applicants-appellants. 2. Civil application Nos. 16158, 16163 and 16166 of 2010 are for condonation of delay of 1230 days caused in filing the accompanying first appeals, challenging the common judgment and award dated 2.3.2007, rendered by the learned District Judge-2, Latur, in L.A.R. Nos. 346/2005, 578/2005 and 72/2005, whereas Civil Application Nos. 16160, 16164, 16165 of 2010 are for stay to the impugned judgment and award. 3. It is pertinent to note that although the judgment and award was passed on 2.3.2007, application for certified copy thereof was filed after a 3 ca16158.10 lapse of almost one year and four months, i.e. on 31.7.2008 and no satisfactory explanation has been given by the applicants in respect of said delay. Moreover, it does not appear that the said delay is not willful, deliberate and intentional, and same is also enormous and hence, same cannot be condoned. 4. 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 4 ca16158.10 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 ca16158.10 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 6 ca16158.10 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 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 application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissed. 07. In the result, applications for condonation of delay stand dismissed. Leave to register the First Appeals stands refused. Court Fee be refunded to applicants-appellants, as per rules. 08. Consequently, Applications for stay do not survive and hence, same also stand disposed of, accordingly. pnd/ca16158.10 (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.)