C.A.No.7192/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7192 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.22962 OF 1999 The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Applicants Versus Ashok Vithoba Kambale ..Respondent - WITH - CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7189 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.24921 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Applicants Versus Narsing Mahadeo Deore ..Respondent - WITH - CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7194 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.23130 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Applicants Versus Vithoba Sadu Kambale ..Respondent - WITH - CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7196 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.23124 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Applicants Versus Madhavi Babu Kambale ..Respondent C.A.No.7192/2010 2 - WITH - CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7198 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.23121 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Applicants Versus Waman Mahadeo Dasme (died) through L.Rs. Mandubai Madhav Dasme and ors. ..Respondents - WITH - CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7200 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.23127 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Applicants Versus Vinayak Ram Gungalgawe ..Respondent Mr S.N.Kendre, A.G.P. for applicants in all applications Mr G.V.Patil, Advocate for respondent in all applications CORAM : MRS MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 28th September, 2011 PER COURT . 1. The applications are made by the State for condonation of delay of 316 days. It is submitted by learned Assistant Government Pleader that award was passed on 28.8.2008. Law and Judiciary Department took out Government Resolution No.428 of 2009 on 2.2.2009 to prefer appeals against the award. Then the proposal was received by the office of the C.A.No.7192/2010 3 Government Pleader on 3.2.2009. Thereafter the draft was preferred and again it was sent for the verification. Certified copies of the relevant documents were obtained. The file was considered and the decision was taken at various levels by different persons. So, the delay is caused. 2. Learned Counsel for the respondent opposes the applications. He relies on rulings in P.K.Ramcharan Vs. State of Kerala and another, reported in (1997) 7 Supreme Court Cases 556 and State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Shri Vithu Kalya Govari and Ors., reported in 2008 (4) ALL MR 856. He submitted that the applicants have failed to give the satisfactory reason. 3. Considered the submissions of both the parties. Considered the rulings. In view of the ratio in the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Moinuddin Kunhi, reported in AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 2577, delay of 316 days is condoned. Applications allowed accordingly. ( MRS MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. ) (vvr/7192.10ca)