1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10722 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.20655 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra and another ... APPLICANTS VERSUS Padmakar Vithoba Kokate ... RESPONDENT ----- Shri K.B. Choudhari, A.G.P. for the applicants Shri S.T. Ghule, Advocate for respondent ----- CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 7th September, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Perused. 2. The applicants have preferred the present Civil Application for condonation of delay of 191 days which occurred in filing the accompanying First Appeal under Stamp No. 20655/2007, challenging the common judgment and order passed in L.A.R. Nos.418/1994, 422/1994 and 372/1994, rendered by Civil 2 Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad on 31.10.2006. 3. The applicants submit that, the applicants applied for certified copy on 19.12.2006 which were ready for delivery on 12.3.2007 and the applicants collected the said copies on the same day. The proposal was submitted to Law & Judiciary Department through District Government Pleader’s office for filing the appeal which was sanctioned and was forwarded to Government Pleader’s office on 12.1.2007. The Government Pleader’s office assigned the First Appeal for drafting to concerned A.G.P. on 15.1.2007. Thereafter appeal was drafted by the concerned A.G.P. The applicants further submit that, the certified copy of judgment and award was prepared and submitted to the office of Government Pleader on 25.4.2007. The difference chart and Demand Draft of Court fees and legal expenses have been collected from the acquiring body and deposited in the office of Government Pleader’s office on 28.6.2007. Thereafter, the accompanying First Appeal was filed on 30.10.2007. Accordingly, the applicants submit that, the delay caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal is not deliberate and intentional and same was caused because of procedural reasons and administrative grounds and prayed that same be condoned. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently 3 opposed the present application and submitted that the present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and, therefore, same be rejected. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the order passed in Civil Application No.58/2008 in First Appeal Stamp No.20658/2008 which was rejected on 9.8.2008, wherein the facts and dates were identical. 5. Considering the rival submissions, at the outset, though the judgment and order was passed on 31.10.2006, the applicants applied for certified copies after the substantial delay of two months i.e. on 19.12.2006 and the said delay has not been explained by the applicants. Moreover, although the concerned A.G.P. was assigned the matter for drafting on 15.1.2007, there is no mention in the application when the said drafting was ready. Apart from that, although it is stated in the present application that the difference chart, demand draft of Court fees and legal expenses were collected from the acquiring body and deposited in the Government Pleader’s office on 28.6.2007, the accompanying appeal came to be filed after the delay of almost four months i.e. on 30.10.2007 and the said delay has not been explained by the applicants. 6. Reliance can be very well placed on the observations 4 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 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. 5 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 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 8. In the circumstances, the delay of 191 days occurred in filing the accompanying First Appeal cannot be construed as unintentional and same has not been explained properly and hence, the present application bears no substance and same deserves to be rejected and same stands rejected accordingly. 9. Since the present Civil Application for condonation of delay is rejected, nothing survives in First Appeal Stamp No. 20655/2007 and, therefore, registration thereof is refused. [SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] fmp/ca10722.07