FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4083 OF 2011 In APPLN/4082/2011 THE STATE OF MAHARSHTRA VERSUS BHAVLAL DAYRAM PATIL ... Mrs. Y.M.Kshirsagar APP for applicant. Mr. Shah J.R. Advocate For Respondent. ... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. Dated: November 16, 2011 ... PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned respective counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant-state for condonation of delay of 277 days caused in filing accompanying criminal application seeking leave to file appeal. 3. It is the contention of the applicant that due to the administrative difficulty and office hassles delay was caused in filing accompanying criminal application seeking leave to file appeal. Moreover, it is also submitted that said delay is not wilful, deliberate and intentional and hence requested that it be condoned in the interest of justice. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders 4. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed present application vehemently and submitted that present application bears no substance, same is devoid of any merits and therefore, same be rejected. It is also canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent that administrative ground and official hassles cannot be construed as grounds for condonation of delay and relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court headed by then Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and others vs Vithu Kalya Govari and others, reported at 2008 (6) Mh.L.J. 239, in which it has been observed 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 In law advantage has accrued to the non-applicants claimants and the same ought not to be withdrawn in a mechanical manner and that too without any sufficient cause being shown by the applicants.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 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders have failed to show sufficient or reasonable cause (in fact they have shown no cause) for the condonation of delay, it is declined. “ Accordingly, learned counsel for the respondent urged that present application be rejected. 5. Considering the rival submissions, at the outset, although the impugned order was passed on 14.9.2010, it appears from the record that applicant State has applied for the certified copy on 12.5.2011 i.e. almost substantial period of 7-8 months and no explanation has been given by the applicant for the said very delay in filing application for certified copy. Moreover, as observed in the aforesaid judgment of Division Bench of this court, administrative ground and official hassle cannot be construed as grounds for condonation of delay. Hence, in fact present application deserves to be rejected. 6. However, simultaneously, it appears that said delay is not wilful, intentional and deliberate and opportunity is required to be given to the applicant-State to prefer an application seeking leave to file appeal in the interest of justice and therefore, present application is required to be allowed, but subject to payment of reasonable costs, by the applicant to the respondent. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders 7. In the result, present application is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’ and delay of 277 days caused in filing accompanying criminal application seeking leave to file appeal shall stand condoned subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- by the applicant to the respondent, within the period of two weeks and present application is disposed of accordingly. 8. Parties to act on the authenticated copy of the order, duly signed by the Court Sheristedar. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. ) aaa/- ***