IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.58 of 2007 DIVISIONAL MANAGER ,ORIENTAL Insurance Co. Ltd, 57 K.P. Road, Near Kiran Cinema, Gaya, P.S. Kotwali, Distt. Gaya. O.P.No.1/Appellant. Versus 1. MOST.RANJU DEVI @ RANJU KUMARI w/o. late Pawan Kumar, 2. Sri Gunjan Kumar minor s/o. late Pawan Kumar, 3. Sri Golden Kumar minor s/o. late Pawan Kumar, 4. Smt. Nirmala Devi, w/o. Sachidanand Singh, All r/o. village Ashma , P.O. Bhudhouli, P.S. Pakariwara, District- Nawadah. ------- Applicants/respondents. 5. Sri Sachidanand Singh, r/o. Village Ashma, P.O. Budhouli, Distt. Nawadah.. 5 12.11.2008 I.A. No.4106 of 2007 is a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act wherein the prayer has been made for condoning the delay of 58 days in the filing of this appeal by the appellant, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. The appeal was filed against the Award dated 14.10.2006 of the learned Deputy Labour Commissioner- cum-Compensation Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya in case of C.W.C. No.51 of 2000 whereby a compensation of Rs.2,17,235/- together with interest therein was allowed to the deceased’s widow Ranju Devi @ Ranju Kumari under Section 10 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. 2 There has been a delay of 58 days in the filing of this appeal. It is stated in paras-2 & 3 of the petition that the certified copy of the Award was delivered to the appellant on 20.10.2006 and it was sent by the Divisional Manager, Gaya to the Regional Office, where Competent Authority passed an order on 27.12.2006 directing to file an appeal. It is further mentioned in para-4 that the file was handed over to the counsel for the appellant on 17.01.2007 who prepared the brief and sent the same to the competent authority on 24.01.2007 for signature and that after his signature the file was returned on 9.2.2007 and thereafter the appeal was filed on 12.02.2007. Thus, there has been a delay of 58 days. The statutory time allowed for filing this appeal was 60 days. From the averments in the condonation petition it appears that after receipt of the certified copy in the office of the appellant, who is the insurance company where work is expected to move with expeditious considerations but the competent authority took 67 days in passing an order of direction for filing this appeal. There is no explanation why 67 days were taken for taking a 3 simple decision for a direction to file appeal. Even after the direction of the competent authority there was callous delay of 20 days in sending the file to the counsel for filing the appeal. There is no explanation why 20 days is taken for the simple work of handing over the file to the counsel for the appellant for filing the appeal. It appears there is gross and negligent delay for which there is no reasonable explanation. Learned counsel for the appellant cited a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition, Anant Nag and another V. Mst. Katigi and others reported in A.I.R. 1987 Supreme Court page 1353. In this cited case the appellant was a government body and there was a delay of only four days and taking into consideration of impersonal machinery, inherited bureaucratic methodology and delay on the part of the State functionaries, the Hon’ble Supreme Court condoned the delay. Learned counsel for the appellant also cited the case of G.Ramegowda Major etc. V. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore reported in A.I.R. 1988 S.C. page-897. In that case appeal had been filed by 4 the Land Acquisition Officer before the High Court which had condoned the delay in the filing of the appeal and on further appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court the condonation of delay was upheld but the facts and circumstances of that case are quite different from the facts and circumstances of the instant case before this Court. Thus, I find that the authorities cited on behalf of the appellant do not help it in view of the gross and negligent delay of 58 days for which there is no reasonable explanation. Accordingly, the limitation petition is dismissed. It has further to be mentioned that as a consequence of the dismissal of the limitation petition this Misc. Appeal also stands dismissed as time barred. Mkr. (C.M. Prasad, J.)