1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CA/11052/2008 In RC/2770/2003 (FAST No.15088/2003) (The State Vs. Madhav Janardhan Saptanshi) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. D.V.Tele, A.G.P., for the applicant. Mr. D.R.Jaybhar, Adv., for sole respondent. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:9-2-2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard. There is delay of 3 years 97 days in causing to file the First Appeal by the State. Ordinarily, such exorbitant delay need not be condoned as Mr.Jaybhar, Counsel, took support from the judgment in the matter of State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Vithu Kalya Govari and others (2008(6) 239 Mh.L.J.) wherein Division Bench of this Court held that on the ground of official hassles delay beyond two years in filing the appeal should not have been considered. 2 2. The factual matrix about the delay in the present case is, apart from the official hassles, administrative inaction and non cooperation, though it needs to be deprecated and, as has been directed in the matter of Vithu (supra), responsibility was to be fixed to the erring officials, the fact remains that the Law Officer received the papers for drafting on 21.2.2002, however, he was crippled for want of certified copy and relevant documents, having been not so forwarded by the Department. Reminder to this effect was sent from the office of the Government Pleader, High Court Bench at Aurangabad on 4th May, 2002. Even subsequent reminder dt. 14.7.2003 could not have its positive response. On 7th Nov., 2003, demand draft for Court fee was received. The delay, though display remissness on the part of some of the officials, however, for that purpose, the State, as a whole, should not be a casualty and, particularly when the award allegedly displays 3 disproportionate enhancement without any nucleus of sale instance to support its base, the delay, though seemingly exorbitant, is sufficiently explained. Delay is condoned. Application allowed. Mr.Jayabhar, Counsel, waives service in the appeal. Call for R & P. S.O. to 28th April, 2010. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/11052-08ca