1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5385 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.10335 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ... APPLICANT VERSUS Shamsundar Dagaduram Sharma & anr. ... RESPONDENTS ----- Shri D.R. Korde, A.G.P. for the applicant Matter already abated against respondent No.1 None for respondent Nos.2 & 3 though served. ----- CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 7th November, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Perused. Heard learned A.G.P. 2. The applicant/ State has preferred the present application for condonation of delay of 3040 days in filing the accompanying First Appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 27.11.1998, passed by learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division at Ahmednagar in L.A.R. No.145/1987. 3. The applicant submits that, after passing the impugned judgment and order on 27.11.1998, the applicant applied 2 for certified copy thereof on 6.7.2004 and the said copies were ready on 14.7.2004 and the applicant collected the said copies on the same day. Thereafter, proposal was submitted to Law & Judiciary Department for sanction through the office of District Government Pleader. Law & Judiciary Department sanctioned the proposal and forwarded to the office of Government Pleader on 9.11.2004 without certified copy of the judgment and order and typed copies of judgment and order. The Government Pleader assigned the matter for drafting to the concerned A.G.P. on 10.11.2000 and accordingly the concerned A.G.P. drafted the First Appeal. However, the First Appeal came to be filed on 22.6.2007 and delay was caused because of procedural aspects and excess workload particularly in the Branch of First Appeal. Hence, it is submitted that the delay caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal is not deliberate, willful and intentional and, therefore, requested that same be condoned in the interest of justice. 4. Considering the averments in the present application and submissions, at the outset, it is material to note that although the judgment and award was passed on 27.11.1998, the applicant applied for the certified copy thereof after the substantial period of more than 5 ½ years i.e. on 6.7.2004 and applicant has nowhere explained the said delay. It also appears from the averments in the present application that the applicant has failed to explain the 3 delay satisfactorily. It appears that, delay caused in filing accompanying First Appeal is not bonafide and the said delay of 3040 days is certainly inordinate and, therefore, same cannot be condoned. 5. Besides that, as regards the ground put forth by the applicant in respect of procedural aspects and official hassle, culminating into delay in filing the accompanying First Appeal, same cannot be construed as a ground for condonation of delay and 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 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 4 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.” 6. 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 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 5 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.” 7. 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/ca5385.07