1 ca14890.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14890 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 24477 OF 2010 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM : SMT. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATED : 21st September, 2011. Mrs. V.A. Shinde, A.G.P. for applicants. Mr. M.S. Karad, advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 10. 1. The application for condonation of 1288 days delay is made by the State. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the decision for filing this appeal was not taken in time and thereafter, the preparation of appeal also consumed considerable time. She submitted that as file was moved from Department to Department and the different Officers working in the Government have given different decisions. Due to the said procedure, the delay is caused. She submitted that while considering the sufficient cause, it is to be liberally construed, when it comes to the Government. The learned counsel in support of her contention relied upon the judgment in the case of "State of Karnataka 2 ca14890.10 V/s Y. Moideen Kunhi (dead) by LRs. & others" reported in AIR 2009 SC 2577. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 10 opposed the application for condonation of delay. He submitted that as the delay of 1288 days is inordinate delay and no sufficient cause is given. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of "State of Maharashtra and others V/s Vithu Kalya Govari & ors" reported in 2008(5)Bom.C.R. 323. 3. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants and the respondents are given while deciding the point of delay in Land Acquisition matters under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In the case of State of Maharashtra V/s Vithu Kalya Govari, there was delay of 2 years. The Division Bench of this Court has taken a view that the explanation officials hassles and procedural delay is not sufficient cause to condone the delay. However, in the judgment of State of Karnataka V/s Y. Moideen Kunhi, though there is delay of 6500 days from original order and about 300 days from order in review petition, that was condoned by the Apex Court. 3 ca14890.10 4. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel and the reliance placed on the ruling of State of Karnataka V/s Y. Moideen Kunhi, the civil application is allowed and delay of 1288 days is condoned subject to the payment of costs of ` 1,000/- to be paid by the State to the respondents. [SMT. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J] ga s/ ca14890.10