1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3004 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.5335 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra & anr. ... APPLICANTS VERSUS Madhavrao Rangrao Kendre & anr. ... RESPONDENTS ----- Shri K.B. Choudhari, A.G.P. for the applicants Shri S.S. Chillarge, Advocate holding for Shri V.G. Sakolkar, Advocate for the respondents ----- CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 7th September, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Perused. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The applicants have preferred the present application for condonation of delay of 847 days in filing the accompanying First Appeal under Stamp No.5335/2008, challenging the judgment and award dated 10.6.2005, passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur in L.A.R. No.908/2002 (Old L.A.R. No.792/1996). 2 3. The applicants submit that, after passing the impugned judgment and order dated 10.6.2005, the applicants applied for certified copies thereof on 15.6.2005, which were ready for delivery on 6.8.2005 and same were collected by the applicants on 17.8.2005. Thereafter the proposal was submitted to Law & Judiciary Department for sanction through the office of Government Pleader and Law & Judiciary Department sanctioned the proposal and forwarded to Government Pleader on 17.2.2006. The office of Government Pleader assigned the First Appeal for drafting to concerned A.G.P. on 20.2.2006. The A.G.P., after going through the file, drafted the appeal. The certified copy of the judgment and order, difference chart and typed copies of judgment and order were prepared and submitted to Government Pleader’s office by the applicants on 27.8.2007. Thereafter the accompanying First Appeal came to be filed on 7.3.2008. Hence, the applicants submit that the delay caused in filing the accompanying First appeal is not intentional and same has been caused because of procedural aspects and on administrative grounds. Hence, the applicants pray that the delay of 847 days caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal be condoned ion the interest of justice. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that there is delay on the part of the applicants at every stage in view of the 3 aforesaid account given by the applicants and the said delay has not been explained by the applicants properly. The learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon the ratio laid down and observations made in the case reported at 2008(6) Mh.L.J. 239 (State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Vithu Kalya Govari and others), and also relied upon the ratio laid down and observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case reported at 2008(6) ALT 38(SC) (Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by L.Rs. Vs. Exe. Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project and Anr.). Accordingly, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that administrative grounds and procedural hassels cannot be the ground for condoning the delay. It is further submitted that the delay occurred in filing the accompanying First Appeal is inordinate. Accordingly, the learned counsel for respondents submitted that the present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and, therefore, same may kindly be rejected. 5. Considering the rival submissions, and also considering the account of the dates given by the applicants, it is apparent that there is delay at every stage on the part of the applicants and same has not been explained by the applicants properly. Moreover, the application is silent when the concerned A.G.P. drafted the appeal after assigning the matter to him on 20.2.2006. Moreover, it is also seen that even after submission of certified copies of judgment and order, difference chart and typed 4 copies of judgment and order to Government Pleader’s office by the applicants on 27.8.2007, the accompanying First Appeal came to be filed after the delay of about 7 months i.e. on 7.3.2008 and said delay has not been explained by the applicants. 6. Hence. reliance can be very well placed on the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court, headed by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice in the judgment reported at 2008(6) Mh.L.J. 239 (State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Vithu Kalya Govari and others), (supra) in which it has been held as under : “ 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 5 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.” 7. Moreover, recently the Apex Court, in the case reported at 2008(6) ALT 38(SC) (Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by L.Rs. Vs. Exe. Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project and Anr.) (supra), by judgment dated 3.11.2008, held that it is the duty of the applicants though they are Government authorities, to explain the delay with cogent reasons and reliance can be very much placed on the observations made in paragraph No.24 thereof which reads as 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 6 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 though a feeble attempt by the learned counsel for the respondent was made to sugget 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.”. 8. In the circumstances, it is apparently clear that there is laxity on the part of the applicants and delay of 847 days in filing the accompanying First Appeal appears to be inordinate and same has not been explained by the applicants properly. Moreover, aforesaid observations are self explicit and hence, applying the parameters of the aforesaid observations in the instant case, it is apparent that the present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and hence, same tobe rejected and same stands rejected accordingly. 9. Since the present Civil Application for condonation of delay is rejected, nothing survives in First Appeal Stamp No. 5335/2008 and, therefore, registration thereof is refused. [SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] fmp/ca3004.08