1 c.a.4850.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4850 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.8422 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra, Through The Collector Latur ...APPLICANT. VERSUS Devidas S/o Vithoba Dalve Age : 55 years,Occup.: Agriculture, R/o Karajgaon, Tq. Ausa, District Latur. ...RESPONDENT. ... Shri.B.J.Sonwane,AGP for Applicant. Shri.M.L.Dharshive,Advocate for Respondent (Absent) ... CORAM: SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATE : 04TH MARCH, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Mr. Sonwane,learned AGP for applicant. Mr. Dharashive learned counsel for respondent is absent. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant- appellant (original respondent) for 2 c.a.4850.09 condonation of delay of 1599 days, caused in preferring the accompanying First Appeal, challenging the impugned Judgment and Award, dated 31.08.2004, rendered by the Ad-hoc Additional District Judge-2 Latur, in L.A.R.No. 1112 of 1992. 3. Respondent has filed affidavit in reply and opposed the present application vehemently. 4. After considering the contents of the application, affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent and submissions made by the learned AGP, it appears that Judgment and Award was passed by the Reference Court, on 31.08.2004, and application for certified copies thereof was submitted after lapse of more than three years i.e. on 20.10.2007. However, no proper and convincing explanation has been given by the applicant in respect of the said substantial delay. 5. Moreover, grounds for condonation of delay 3 c.a.4850.09 put forth by the applicant pertain to the inter se correspondence between the offices of the applicant-appellant-State, and also appear to be administrative grounds. However, official hassle and administrative grounds are no grounds or reasons for condonation of delay and in this context, reliance can be placed on the ratio laid down and observations made by the Division Bench headed by then Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and ors. vs. Vithu Kalya Govari reported at 2008 (6) Mh.L.J. 239, which are to following effect. "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 4 c.a.4850.09 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 laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by L.Rs. versus Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project, reported at 2008 (6) ALT 38 (SC) , more particularly in paragraph 24 which reads :- " It is true when the State and its instrumentalities are the applicants 5 c.a.4850.09 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 or 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 c.a.4850.09 7. In the circumstances, present civil 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 the First Appeal stands refused. Court Fee be refunded to the applicant as per rules. Sd/- [SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J.] MTK