1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13498 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.25062 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra ... APPLICANT VERSUS Smt. Trivenibai w/o Raosaheb Patil (Akhade) RESPONDENT ----- Shri K.B. Choudhari, A.G.P. for the applicants Shri S.B. Rohile, Advocate for the respondent ----- CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 7th September, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Perused. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The applicant has preferred the present application for condonation of delay of 671 days in filing the accompanying First Appeal under Stamp No25062/2008, challenging the judgment and award dated 31.8.2006, passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad in L.A.R. No.460/1994. 3. The applicant submits that, after the impugned judgment and order passed on 31.8.2006, the applicant applied 2 for certified copies thereof on 2.9.2006 which wer ready on 13.11.2006 and same were collected by the applicant on the same day. Thereafter the applicant approached the District Government Pleader and obtained the legal opinion for filing the First Appeal. The District Government Pleader recommended for filing First Appeal and thereafter the applicant submitted the proposal through District Government Pleader to the Joint Secretary, Law & Judiciary Department, who sanctioned the proposal and forwarded to the office of the Government Pleader on 12.1.2007 and the office of Government Pleader received the said proposal on the same day and assigned the First Appeal for drafting to concerned A.G.P. on 15.1.2007. Thereafter the appeal was drafted by the concerned A.G.P. 4. The applicant submits that, the certified copy of the judgment and award having prepared and submitted to the office of Government Pleader on 3.2.2007 and the typed copy of the judgment was submitted on 17.10.2008, 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 on 28.6.2007. Thereafter the accompanying First Appeal came to be filed on 11.12.2008. 5. Hence, the learned A.G.P. for the applicant submitted that as such the delay caused in filing the accompanying First 3 Appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional and same is caused due to procedural aspects and on administrative grounds and, therefore, prayed that same be condoned in the interest of justice. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that the delay of 671 days caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal is inordinate and same has not been explained by the applicant properly and, therefore, submitted that present application be rejected. The learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon the ratio laid down and observations made in the case reported at 2008(6) Mh.L.J. 239 (State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Vithu Kalya Govari and others), and also relied upon 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.). Accordingly, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that administrative grounds and procedural hassels cannot be the ground for condoning the delay. It is further submitted that the delay occurred in filing the accompanying First Appeal is inordinate. Accordingly, the learned counsel for respondent submitted that the present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and, therefore, same may kindly be rejected. 4 7. Considering the rival submissions, the accounts given by the applicant is self explicit which reflects that there is delay on the part of the applicant and same has not been explained by the applicant properly. Moreover, the application is silent on the very point that after assigning the First Appeal for drafting to the concerned A.G.P. on 15.1.2007, when the learned A.G.P. drafted the appeal. Moreover, although it is mentioned that the certified copies of judgment and award have been prepared and submitted to the office of Government Pleader on 3.2.2007, why delay has been caused in submission of typed copy of judgment on 17.10.2008 and same has not been explained. Moreover, although 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 on 28.6.2007, why the delay is caused in filing the accompanying appeal till 11.12.2008 and same has not been explained by the applicant anywhere. 8. Hence. 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), (supra) in which it has been held as under : 5 “ 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.” 9. 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 6 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.”. 10. In the circumstances, applying the parameters of the aforesaid observations in the instant case, it is apparent that there is laxity on the part of the applicant and the delay caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal has not been explained by the 7 applicant properly. In the circumstances, the 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. 25062/2008 and, therefore, registration thereof is refused. [SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] fmp/ca13498.08