1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5066 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.9007 OF 2008. The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Shivaji Bhila Patil RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mrs.S. D. Shelke, the AGP for the applicant/State. Miss. Hardas holding for Mr. C. R. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J.) DATE : 1st October, 2009. ----------------------------------------------- PER COURT : 1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 2495 days caused in filing the First Appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 29.03.2001 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhule in L.A.R. No.21/1997. Smt. Shelke, the learned AGP has invited my attention to the para no.2 of the civil application which according to her is explanation for the delay caused, in filing the appeal. The contents of para no.2 are therefore reproduced below :- “The applicant submits that, the impugned judgment and order is passed on 29.03.2001. The applicant applied for certified copy of the decree on 13.01.2004. The certified 2 copies were ready for delivery on 19.01.2004. The applicant collected the certified copies and thereafter submitted the proposal to the Law and Judiciary Department for sanction through the office of the District Government Pleader. The Law and Judiciary Department sanctioned the proposal and forwarded to the office of Government Pleader on 28.10.2002. The Government Pleader assigned the first appeal for drafting the concerned Assistant Government Pleader on 29.10.2005. The Assistant Government Pleader after going through file the appeal is drafted and as such the delay caused in filing first appeal is not deliberate or intentional however, the same is caused because of procedure to be followed by the State while filing first appeal. The applicant submits that the delay is caused because of the procedure aspects.” 2. The learned AGP urged that the certified copy of the judgment and order was submitted to the office of the Government Pleader on 02.11.2004 and thereafter the court fees and legal expenses were submitted on 17.03.2008. According to the learned AGP, the delay is not deliberate or intentional but it is caused due to administrative difficulties and procedure. 3. Miss Hardas holding for Shri. C. R. Deshpande, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-claimant has pointed out several dates as under:- (i) 23.09.2001 The judgment was delivered by the Trial Court. (ii) 28.10.2002 The matter was forwarded to the office of the Government Pleader for preparation of appeal. 3 (iii) 13.01.2004 The application for certified copy was filed. (iv) 19.01.2004 The certified copy was delivered. (v) 29.10.2005 The matter was assigned to the Government Pleader for drafting of appeal. (vi) 24.03.2008 The verification of the application was made by the concerned Officer. (vii) 25.04.2008 The appeal was filed. 4. According to Miss Hardas the delay has occurred at every stage of process and there is no explanation in respect thereto. She has urged that the official hassles can not be sufficient ground for condonation of delay caused in filing the appeal and for that purposes she relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court reported in 2008(4) All M.R. 856 (State of Maharashtra & Ors. V/s Shri. Vithu Kalya Govari & Ors) and also the decision of Apex Court delivered in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by Lrs. V/s Executive Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project and Anr.) reported in 2008(6) Bom CR 513. She has relied upon the paragraph no.24 of the said Judgment which is reproduced below :- “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 4 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 proved 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 pleading.” The learned Counsel Miss.Hardas has urged that the State Government and its instrumentalities are entitled to certain amount of latitude but the law of limitation is the same for citizen and for Governmental authorities and it does not provide for different period to the Government to file an appeals or applications. She has further urged that so called hassles which are unspecified in the application can always be set at right by the Government and approval can be granted expeditiously. However that can not be the reason or the sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 5. In this case, as is apparent from the facts pleaded that the judgment was delivered on 23.09.2001 and the proposal for filing an appeal was sanctioned and forwarded to the office of the Government 5 Pleader on 28.10.2002 i.e. after lapse of one year. This delay has not been explained. The application for certified copy was thereafter submitted on 13.01.2004 i.e. after lapse of 13 months, which has also not been explained. Though the certified copy was obtained on 19.01.2004, the Government Pleader assigned the appeal for drafting to Assistant Government Pleader on 29.10.2004 i.e. after lapse of about 19 months. It is not known whether there was delay in submitting the certified copy to the office of the Government Pleader or there was delay in assigning the matter for drafting. There is no explanation in respect of this. Though, the application for condonation of delay seems to have prepared in the month of December, 2006, it was not verified till 24.03.2008. Thus, the period spent for drafting of appeal from 29.10.2005 i.e. About 14 months and the period of 16 months thereafter required for verification of the application has also not been explained. Thus, there is complete lethargy and failure to pursue the matter at every stage. It can not therefore be said that the administrative hassles was the reason for seeking condonation of delay. The reasons are not bonafide and no case is made out to exhibit sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The application is therefore rejected. (R. K. DESHPANDE ) JUDGE GAS/ca5066.08