1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9527 OF 2006 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.18488 OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra ... APPLICANT VERSUS Ashok s/o Hukumchand Shrishrimal & ors. ... RESPONDENTS ----- Shri K.B. Choudhari , Addl.G.P. for the applicant ----- CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 7th November, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Perused. Heard learned Additional Government Pleader for the applicant. 2. The applicant/ State has preferred the present application for condonation of delay of 3410 days in filing the accompanying First Appeal challenging the common judgment and award dated 31.10.1995, rendered by learned Joint District Judge, Beed in Land Acquisition Reference No.169/1990, 2 awarding the compensation amount of Rs.11,140/- and interest thereon to the original claimants. 3. The applicant submits that, after passing the aforesaid judgment and order, the applicant applied for certified copy on 1.11.1995 and same were ready for delivery on 15.2.1997, the applicant collected the said copies on the same day and submitted the proposal to Law & Judiciary Department for sanction through District Government Pleader’s office. Accordingly, Law & Judiciary Department sanctioned the proposal and forwarded to office of Government Pleader on 12.7.1996. Thereafter, Government Pleader Office assigned the matter to A.G.P. for drafting the First Appeal on the same day and same was drafted accordingly. 4. However, the applicant submits that, certified copy of the decree/ award, difference chart, bill of cost and typed copies of judgment and award were not received. Hence, same were called by the office of Government Pleader, High Court Bench at Aurangabad by fax dated 15.7.1996, 25.3.1997, 8.2.2000, 6.6.2000, 16.3.2004 and common letter dated 10.1.2006 and thereafter the office received the certified copy of decree/ award and typed copy of judgment and award on 19.6.2006, which resulted into delay of 3410 days and hence, applicant requested to 3 condone the same in the interest of justice. 5. Considering the averments in the present application and also considering the submissions advanced by learned Additional Government Pleader, it appears that the reasons put forth by the application for condonation of delay are not satisfactory and the reasons do not appear to be bonafide to condone the delay. Moreover, the delay caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal is certainly inordinate i.e. 3410 days and the applicant has not accounted for the said delay and, therefore, it appears that the said delay is willful, deliberate and intentional and hence, same cannot obe condoned. 6. 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), 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 4 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.” 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.) 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 5 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 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, the present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and hence, deserves to be rejected and the same stands rejected accordingly. Registration of First appeal stands refused. [SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] fmp/ca9527.06