1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9498 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.17741 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ... APPLICANT VERSUS Sher Khan s/o Hakeem Patel & anr. ... RESPONDENTS ----- Shri K.B. Choudhari, A.G.P. for the applicant ----- CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 7th September, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Perused. 2. The applicant has preferred the present application for condonation of delay of 3256 days in filing the accompanying First Appeal challenging the judgment and award rendered by learned Joint District Judge, Latur in L.A.R. No.566/1992 on 28.7.1998. 2 3. The applicant submits that, after passing the aforesaid award, the proposal was moved by District Government Pleader’s office to the Joint Secretary, Law & Judiciary Department, Aurangabad, which took a decision to prefer First Appeal against the enhancement and proposal to that extent was sent to the office of Government Pleader which was received to the applicant’s office on 24.11.1998. After receipt of the proposal, the letter demanding the court fees and relevant documents required for filing the appeal were sent to the concerned Department and also reminders were sent to get the concerned certified copies and other documents and other compliance by the Government Pleader’s office. The certified copies were received on 10.9.2004 and the bill of costs was received on 25.4.2007. 4. The applicant submits that, though the matter was preferred, but due to non-availability of certified copies and other relevant documents, delay was caused. It is submitted that, due to administrative reasons and inherent in the working of Government Department, the delay of 3256 days was caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal and the said delay is unintentional and was caused due to heavy workload and due to reasons beyond control of the applicant. Hence, the applicant prays that the said delay be condoned in the interest of justice. 3 5. Heard learned A.G.P. for the applicant. None appears for the respondents although duly served. 6. After perusal of the present application and hearing the learned A.G.P. for the applicant, it is curious to note that the present application is silent, after passing the judgment and award on 28.7.1998 which is impugned in the accompanying First Appeal, on which date the applicant applied for certified copies, on which date the said certified copies of the judgment and award were ready and on which date the applicant collected the same. Moreover, although it is stated that the certified copy of Bill of Costs was received on 25.4.2007, and certified copies were received on 10.9.2004, the accompanying First Appeal came to be filed after the lapse of 3256 days i.e. on 24.9.2007 and the applicant has failed to explain the said delay. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, reliance can be very well placed in the case reported at 2008(6) Mh.L.J. 239 (State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Vithu Kalya Govari and others), and also reliance can be placed on the ratio laid down and observations made by the Hon’ble 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.). The Division Bench of this Court, headed by 4 Hon’ble the Chief Justice, in the reported judgment at 2008(6) Mh.L.J. 239 (State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Vithu Kalya Govari and others), (supra) 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.” 8. 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 5 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.” 9. In the circumstances, applying the parameters of the 6 aforesaid observations in the instant case, it is apparent that there is laxity on the part of the applicant. Moreover, the delay of 3256 days in filing the accompanying First Appeal is inordinate and same has not been explained by the applicant properly. 10. In the circumstances, present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and hence, same deserves to be rejected and same stands rejected accordingly. 11. Since the present Civil Application for condonation of delay is rejected, nothing survives in First Appeal Stamp No. 17741/2007 and, therefore, registration thereof is refused. [SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] fmp/ca9679.07