1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5352 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 8954 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant VERSUS Navnath s/o Satwa Bhate & ors. ...Respondents ..... Shri T.S. Lodhe, A.G.P. for the applicant Shri R.D. Khadap holding for Shri S.S. Thombre, advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 8 ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 21 st January, 2011 PER COURT : 1 Heard Shri T.S. Lodhe, A.G.P. for the applicant and Shri R.D. Khadap holding for Shri S.S. Thombre, advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 8. 2 2 This is an application preferred by the applicant for condonation of delay of 561 days caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal. 3 It is stated in the application that the applicant collected the certified copies on 8.3.2006 and due to administrative ground and official hassle, the typed copies thereof were submitted to the office of the Government Pleader on 4.3.2008, which consequently resulted in causing delay in filing the accompanying First Appeal. 4 However, Division Bench of this Court headed by Honourable Chief Justice has observed in the case reported at 2008(6) Mh.L.J.239 [State of Maharashtra and others vs Vithu Kalya Govari and others] (supra) that official hassle is no ground for the condonation of delay and reliance can very well be placed on the observations made in the same case 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 In law advantage has accrued to the non- 3 applicants claimants and the same ought not to be withdrawn in a mechanical manner and that too without any sufficient cause being shown by the applicants.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 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 4 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 any basis. We cannot entertain the submission made across the Bar without there being any proper foundation in the pleadings.” 6 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 respondents. 7 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 5 be rejected and, therefore, same stands rejected accordingly. Leave to file appeal stands refused. The court fee be refunded to the applicant as per rules. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) dbm/ca5352.08