1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9701 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.20734 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra & anr. ... APPLICANTS VERSUS Mahadeo Muktaji Garkal & anr. ... RESPONDENTS ----- Shri D.R. Korde, A.G.P. for the applicants Respondents absent in spite of service ----- CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 7th November, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Perused. Heard learned A.G.P. for the applicants. 2. The applicants have preferred the present application for condonation of delay of 458 days caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal, challenging the judgment and award dated 17.12.2005, passed by learned 5th Adhoc Additional District Judge, Beed in Land Acquisition Reference No.94/2005. 3. The applicants submit that, after passing the said judgment and order, the applicants applied for certified copies on 2 19.12.2005, which were ready for delivery on 3.5.2006 and applicants collected the same on 24.7.2006. Thereafter, the proposal was submitted to Law & Judiciary Department for sanction through District Government Pleader’s office and accordingly Law & Judiciary Department sanctioned the same and forwarded to the office of Government Pleader on 22.11.2006. Thereafter, Government Pleader’s office assigned the matter to concerned A.G.P. for drafting the First Appeal on 23.11.2006. Accordingly, the concerned A.G.P. drafted the First Appeal. However, the difference chart, typed copies of judgment and order were received by Government Pleader’s office on 19.7.2007 and thereafter the accompanying first Appeal came to be filed on 31.10.2007, resulting into 458 days delay therein. 4. The applicants submit that the said delay is bonafide and occurred due to administrative grounds and procedural aspects and the said delay is not willful, deliberate and intentional and, therefore, same be condoned in the interest of justice. 5. Considering the averments in the application and submissions advanced by learned A.G.P., it appears that, although the certified copies of the judgment and award were ready for delivery on 3.5.2006, the applicant collected the same after a period of 2 ½ months i.e. on 24.7.2006 and the applicant has nowhere given any explanation for the said delay. Besides 3 that, although the matter was assigned to concerned A.G.P. on 23.11.2006, the applicant has nowhere stated on which date the concerned A.G.P. drafted the First Appeal. Moreover, although the difference chart and typed copy of judgment and order were received by Government Pleader’s office on 19.7.2007, the First Appeal came to be filed after the substantial period of 3 ½ months i.e. on 31.10.2007 and the applicant has miserably failed to explain about the said delay. Thus, it appears that the delay of 458 days occurred in filing the accompanying First Appeal has not been explained by the applicant satisfactorily and the said delay is not bonafide and it appears to be willful, deliberate and intentional and certainly it is inordinate delay and, therefore, same cannot obe condoned. 6. As regards the contention raised by the applicant in respect of procedural aspects and administrative grounds, the said reasons cannot be construed as 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 4 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.” 7. 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 5 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.” 8. 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/ca9701.07