1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD C.A. NO. 2546 OF 2010 IN F.A. ST. NO. 1195 OF 2010 C.A. NO. 2548 OF 2010 IN F.A. ST. NO. 1200 OF 2010 C.A. NO. 2550 OF 2010 IN F.A. ST. NO. 1205 OF 2010 C.A. NO. 2552 OF 2010 IN F.A. ST. NO. 1206 OF 2010 C.A. NO. 2554 OF 2010 IN F.A. ST. NO. 1178 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 : S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. DATED : 26.11.2010 1. These are Civil Applications for condonation of delay of about 1010 days in filing the appeals. 2. Heard Smt. Kshirsagar, learned A.G.P. for the applicants and Shri Sakolkar, learned Counsel for the non-applicants. It is submitted by the applicants that the judgment and award came to be passed on 12.01.2007. The proposal was sent to the Law and Judiciary Department and the same was also forwarded to the Government Pleader’s Office at High Court, Aurangabad on 03.12.2007. The appeal was also drafted and while scrutinizing it was revealed that the certified 2 copies and the typed copies of the judgment and award so also the Court fees were not accompanied. The concerned A.G.P. immediately communicated the Department on 05.07.2008. But, the Department did not take any steps and it is only on 05.12.2009 the certified and typed copies were received by the Government Pleader’s Office at Aurangabad. Smt. Kshirsagar, learned A.G.P. states that the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional, but due to aforesaid reasons. The learned A.G.P. states that the applicants were not to gain anything by the delay. The delay has occasioned because of the administrative reasons only and as such the delay be condoned. 3. Shri Sakolkar, learned Counsel for the non-applicant states that delay is not explained. The delay is inordinate. Even if the expression “sufficient cause” is to be liberally construed, there are no reasons stated. On the contrary, the reasons stated highlights negligence of the Department. 3 4. The delay caused is more than three years. No doubt, expression “sufficient cause” has to be liberally construed, but it cannot be so liberally construed to the extent that the said expression would become redundant. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra & Ors. V/s. Vithu Kalya Govari and Ors., reported in 2008 (6) Mh.L.J., 239, has held that even the State has to explain the delay properly and the State is not a privilege litigant. The reasons depict the gross negligence on the part of the parties concerned, in as much as, although the proposal was sent in 2007, certified and typed copies were sent to the Government Pleader’s Officer in December, 2009. 5. In light of above, as no cause is stated, the applications are rejected. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J.] snk/2010/NOV10/ca2546.10