IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR C.A.Z. NO.359/2011 IN L.P.A. ST. 3769/2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3420/2005 THE PLANTATION OFFICER KAND ANOR ..V.S. HARIDAS DANGE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Anand Deshpande AGPfor applicants Shri N.R.Saboo, adv for respondent CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & SHRI P.B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : JULY 28, 2011. Heard Shri Deshpande, the learned AGP for the applicants and Shri Saboo, the learned counsel for the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent strongly opposes the prayer made in the civil application and states that the reasons stated in the application for seeking condonation of delay are not sufficient to condone the inordinate delay of 834 days in filing the letters patent appeal. We have perused the application filed by the applicants for condonation of delay in filing the L.P.A. The only reason stated in the application for seeking condonation of delay is that the applicant had taken steps as per the advise of the A.G.P. that they should challenge the recovery proceedings first and therefore, the applicants had taken steps to challenge the order of recovery of back wages first and hence the present letters patent appeal was filed belatedly. The reason stated in the application for seeking condonation of delay is neither cogent nor sufficient to condone the delay caused in filing the L.P.A. It is not possible to believe that in view of the advise of the Assistant Government Pleader the applicants challenged the recovery proceedings first and therefore the delay was caused in filing the L.P.A. We do not know as to when the challenge to the recovery proceedings was raised. There is a consistent delay on the part of the applicants in prosecuting the matter as the Writ Petition No.3420/2005 was also filed by the appellants belatedly after a period of three years. Since the delay of 834 days in filing the letters patent appeal is not explained satisfactorily, the civil application is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE SMP