1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 398 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 24855 OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant Orig. respondent VERSUS Smt. Godhabai Bonji Andhale, deceased through L.Rs. 1-A Baban Rakhma Andhale & ors. ...Respondents Original claimants ..... Smt. V.A.Shinde, A.G.P. for the applicant Shri P.R.Nagre, advocate for respondent nos. 1-A to 1-D and 2 present. ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 8th December, 2009 PER COURT : 1 Perused. Heard learned A.G.P. for the applicant and learned counsel for respondent nos. 1-A to 1-D and 2. 2 The applicant has preferred the present application for 2 condonation of delay of 2850 days caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal, challenging the judgment and award dated 27.11.1998, passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar in L.A.R. No. 92 of 1987. 3 Learned A.G.P. submits that after passing the impugned judgment and award, the applicant applied for certified copies thereof and thereafter submitted the proposal to the Law and Judiciary Department for sanction through the office of the Government Pleader. The Law and Judiciary Department sanctioned the proposal and forwarded it to the office of the Government Pleader. Thereafter, the Government Pleader assigned the First Appeal for drafting to concerned A.G.P. Accordingly, concerned A.G.P. drafted the First Appeal, but could not file immediately because the certified copies of the impugned judgment and award were not received to the office of the Government Pleader, High Court, Bench at Aurangabad. Therefore, letters were sent to the concerned authorities. Thereafter certified copies were delivered to the office of the Government Pleader on 17.1.2006 and accordingly accompanying First Appeal came to be filed. Hence, it is submitted that the delay caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal is due to time consumed in administrative procedure and 3 also due to heavy work load and non-availability of certified copies and difference chart and, therefore, it is submitted that the said delay is not willful, deliberate and intentional. 4 Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that the official hassles and administrative procedure are no grounds for condonation of delay and relied upon the observations made in the case reported at 2008 (6) Mh.L.J. 239 [State of Maharashtra and others vs Vithu Kalya Govari and others] delivered by Division Bench of this court and also relied upon the observations made 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.]. It is further submitted that present application bears no substance and is devoid of any merit and same be rejected. 5 On perusal of the averments made in the present application and also after considering the rival contentions of both the parties, at the out set it is seen that although the judgment and award was passed on 27.11.1998, the applicant applied for certified copy thereof on 6.7.2004 i.e. almost after 5½ years and no satisfactory reason has been put forth by the applicant for the said delay caused in applying the certified copy itself. 4 6 Moreover, it is now settled principle that official hassles and administrative procedure are no grounds for condonation of delay and reliance can be very well placed on the observations made by the Division Bench of this court headed by Hon’ble Chief Justice in the case reported 2008 (6) Mh.L.J. 239 [State of Maharashtra and ors. Vs Vithu Kalya Govari and ors.] (supra), as follows :- “ 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 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.” 5 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.) (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 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 suggest collusion and fraud but without 6 any basis. We cannot entertain the submission made across the Bar without there being any proper foundation in the pleadings.” 7 In the circumstances, applying the said parameters, in the instant case, it is apparently clear that the procedural aspects, administrative grounds and official hassles cannot be construed as ground for condonation of delay. Besides, it is apparent that there is laxity on the part of the applicant and if the present application is allowed, prejudice would certainly be caused to the respondent. 8 Hence, considering the factual position as well as the legal position, it is apparent that present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be rejected and, therefore, same stands rejected accordingly. The court fee be refunded to the applicant as per rules. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) dbm/ca398.07