1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. C.A. NO. 5071/08 IN L.P.A. ST. NO. 9954/08 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5253 OF 2006. The State of Mah. & others .vs. Jivatram Gangadas Mihani ________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders. Registrars orders. Mrs. B.H. Dangre, Addl. G.P. for applicants, Mr. P.C. Madkholkar, Advocate for respondent. CORAM: S.A. BOBDE & F.M. REIS, JJ. DATED: APRIL 17, 2009. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. This is an application for condonation of delay of a period of 360 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. The judgment was delivered on 28.8.2007. The appellant received a certified copy of judgment on 3.9.2007. Thereafter, the Principal Secretary granted approval for filing of the appeal on 22.9.2007. The Assistant Government Pleader was informed by letter dated 21.11.2007. The matter was then forwarded to the Law & Judiciary Department which granted its permission on 3.4.2008. After this, the Department wrote to the Assistant Government Pleader on 7.4.2008 for filing the appeal. However, the Court was on vacation from 7.5.2008 to 2.6.2008. After reopening, the appeal was prepared and filed on 26.6.2008. Mrs. B.H. Dangre, learned Additional Government 2 Pleader for applicants/appellants, seeks condonation of delay of the aforesaid period. Mr. P.C. Madkholkar, learned Advocate for respondent, strenuously resisted the application for condonation of delay on the ground that the appellants have not shown sufficient cause and have been negligent in pursuing the matter. Having considered the matter, we find that there is no doubt that the appellants have proceeded with some degree of lethargy in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. This, however, seems to be the usual procedure which the appellants adopt in filing such appeals quite oblivious and disregardful of the rights of the other side. The facts of the case suggest that there is something inherently lackadaisical about obtaining approvals for filing appeals and there is no attempt to do things expeditiously. However, we do not find from the facts of the case any particular malafides on the part of the appellants. We are constrained to say that the delay is of the usual kind. Mr. P.C. Madkholkar, learned Advocate for respondent, relies on a decision of Division Bench of this Court in C.A. No. 3200/07 in First Appeal St. No. 11231/07 decided on 26.6.2008 at Principal Seat where in a case pertaining to Land Acquisition, this Court held that where the reason given by the appellant was “official hassle”, it cannot be considered to justify condonation of delay particularly since the so-called hassles were not specified. We find that the facts of the present case are not similar to the case cited before us. Similarly, Mr. P.C. Madkholkar, learned Advocate 3 for respondent, relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in P.K. Ramachandran .vs. State of Kerala & another reported in JT 1997(8) S.C. 189 where the applicants for condonation of delay had given the reason as follows :- “at that time the Advocate General’s office was fed up with so many arbitration matters equally important to this case were pending for consideration as per the directions of the Advocate General on 2.9.1995.” The facts of that case are also not similar to the present case though we must note that the appellants have considerable ability in coming up with new and unusual reasons for praying for condonation of delay in similar set of circumstances. However, having regard to the overall circumstances of the case in which the State seeks to assert its right to recover excise duty from partners, we are of the view that in the present case there is sufficient cause for not approaching this Court in time, particularly since the delay is largely procedural and administrative and there are no malafides. In these circumstances, we consider it appropriate in the interest of justice to condone the delay, subject however, to the appellants/applicants paying a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards costs to the non-applicants. The application stands disposed of. Order accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE. J.