1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10756 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.21049 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra & anr. ... APPLICANTS VERSUS Namdeo s/o Narsu Garkal ... RESPONDENT ----- Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for the applicants Shri K.D. Bade Patil, Advocate for respondent ----- CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 3rd September, 2010. ORAL ORDER : 1. Perused. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicants for condonation of delay of 459 days caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 16.12.2005, passed by learned 5th Adhoc Additional District Judge, Beed in Land Acquisition Reference. 2 3. It is the contention of the applicants that, the judgment and award was passed on 16.12.2005 and applicants applied for the certified copy immediately on the next day i.e. on 17.12.2005. The said certified copies were ready for delivery on 3.6.2006, but the applicants collected the same on 24.7.2006. Thereafter the applicants submitted the proposal in Law & Judiciary Department for sanction through the office of Assistant Government Pleader. The Law & Judiciary Department sanctioned the proposal and forwarded to the office of Government Pleader on 16.10.2006. The Government Pleader assigned the First Appeal for drafting to the concerned A.G.P. on 17.10.2006. The A.G.P., after going through the file, drafted the appeal and as such, delay was caused in filing the First Appeal, which was neither deliberate nor intentional. The applicants also submit that the difference chart was submitted on 19.7.2007 and typed copies of judgment were prepared and submitted to the office of Government Pleader on 19.7.2007. Hence, the applicants urged that the said delay is not willful and, therefore, same be condoned. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that the administrative hassle is no ground for condonation of delay. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment 3 delivered by Division Bench of this Court headed by Honourable the Chief Justice of this Court in the case reported at 2008(6) Mh.L.J. 239 (State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Vithu Kalya Govari and others) and also relied upon the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme 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.). It is also pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent that although the certified copies were ready for delivery on 3.5.2006, the applicant collected the same after 2 ½ months i.e. on 24.7.2006 and no explanation has been given for the same. Accordingly, learned counsel for the respondent urged that present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and, therefore, same be rejected. 5. Considering the rival submissions, at the outset, it is apparent that, although the applicants applied for the certified copies on 17.12.2005, immediately on the next day of judgment and award i.e. on 16.12.2005, the said certified copies were ready for delivery on 3.5.2006, but the applicants collected the same after the delay of 2 ½ months i.e. on 24.7.2006 and no proper explanation has been given therefor. The grounds put forth by the applicants for condonation of delay appear to be administrative grounds. However, the official hassle and administrative grounds 4 are no longer grounds / reasons for condonation of delay. In the said context, reliance can be placed on the ratio laid down and observations made by the Division Bench headed by Hon’ble the Chief Justice of this Court in the case reported at 2008(6) Mh.L.J. 239 (State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Vithu Kalya Govari and others), in which it has been observed 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 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, reliance can also be placed on the ratio 5 laid down by 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, in which it is observed in paragraph No.24 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 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.” 6 7. In the circumstances, present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissed. 8. In the result, present Civil Application stands dismissed. Registration of First Appeal stands refused. Court fee be refunded as per rules. [SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] fmp/ca10756.07