1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO.912/2011 IN CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) ST NO.3132/2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4670/1996 The State of Maharashtra through Administrator and Superintending Engineer Command Area Development Authority Fakirwada, Ahmednagar. Applicant. orig. petitioner. V E R S U S Shivaji Jaywant Kolte and another. Respondents. .......................................................................................... Mr.B.V.Wagh, Learned APP for applicant. Mr. N.C.Garud Advocate for the respondent No.1. ........................................................................................... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 4 th JULY, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant-state for condonation of delay of 436 days caused in filing accompanying civil application (review) St.No.3132/2011 in writ petition No.4670/1996. 2 3. It appears that the applicant-petitioner has filed Writ Petition No.4670/1996 before this Court challenging the judgment and order dated 20.2.1995, rendered by Presiding Officer and Judge, IInd Labour Court, Ahmednagar in Reference IDA No.84/1991. However, said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 7 th July, 2009 on the submission/statement made by learned A.G.P on instructions. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied by the said order dated 7.7.2009, the applicant has filed accompanying review application but there is delay caused in filing said application and hence applicant has preferred present application for delay condonation. 4. it is the contention of the applicant that impugned order passed by this Court on 7.7.2009, and there after concerned AGP forwarded opinion to the Law and Judiciary Department, Aurangabad. Upon scrutiny of the same, the Law and Judiciary Department, Aurangabad forwarded proposal for filing review vide proposal dated 5.4.2010. The said proposal was put up before the concerned AGP for drafting. Upon going through the proposal the concerned AGP drafted the review application immediately. It is further submitted that as such delay caused in filing review application is procedural and not intentional. It is 3 also submitted that said delay deserves to be condoned. It is also the contention of the applicant that said review is based on sound legal grounds and applicant has every hope to succeed and hence applicant urged that delay of 436 days caused in filing review application be condoned in the interest of justice. 5. Respondent filed affidavit in reply and opposed present application vehemently. It is the contention of the respondent that, although order was passed by this Court in writ petition No.4670/1996 on 7.7.2009 the applicant-state authority have filed review petition after inordinate delay taking casual approach and applicant-state played with the life of entire family of the respondent. It is submitted that the said act of the State authorities have caused mental agony to the respondent and family. It is also contended by the respondent that said authorities have not at all furnished the reasons or any sufficient cause for delay in filing review petition. It is further submitted that in view of the disposal of writ petition, the question of filing of review also does not arise. It is further canvassed that the Law of limitation is the same for both citizen and the Government authorities. Besides, it is submitted that no details have been furnished in 4 the present application about date on the AGP forwarded opinion to the Law and Judiciary Department, Aurangabad. It is further pointed out that although Law and Judiciary Department Aurangabad forwarded the proposal for filing review on 5.4.2010, the present application came to be filed on 1.10.2010 and applicant has not explained said delay about six months. According to learned counsel for respondent, the applicant has miserably failed to plead and prove the sufficient cause for condonation of delay and hence urged that present application bears no substance and same be dismissed. 6. After perusal of the contents of the present application and contents of the affidavit-in-reply as well as after considering the submissions advanced by the parties, at the outset there is delay of 436 days which has been caused in filing accompanying civil application (review) by the applicant and present application no where spells out the convincing explanation for said delay. The present application is silent in respect of dates on which the applicant applied for certified copy of order dated 7.7.2009, on which date it was received by the applicant and on which date the proposal was forwarded to Law and Judiciary Department 5 for filing review. Moreover, although it is stated in the application that upon scrutiny Law and judiciary Department forwarded proposal for filing review, by proposal dated 5.4.2010, there is no whisper in the present application that on which date Government Pleader’s office received the said proposal and on which date the matter was assigned to AGP and on which date A.G.P. drafted the application, and more particularly there is no explanation why the present application was filed after almost about 6 months delay, as well as applicant has not given any plausible explanation in respect of earlier delay and, consequently, the applicant has miserably failed to explain the delay satisfactorily. 7. Moreover, reliance can be placed on the ratio laid down and observations made by the Division Bench headed by 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 6 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. “ Moreover, reliance can also be placed on the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by L.Rs. Vs Exe. Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project and Anr., reported at 2008 (6) ALT 38 (SC), by judgment dated 3.11.2008, in which it is observed in paragraph no.24 as under :- “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 7 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 through 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 pleadings. “ 8. Besides it is also apparent from the impugned judgment and order dated 7.7.2009 passed in writ petition No.4670/1996 that said order was passed on the basis of submission/statement made by the learned AGP and consequently said petition was disposed of and therefore also, apparently, there is no patent error therein. In the circumstances, present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and therefor same is therefore deserves to be dismissed. 9. In the result, present application which is sans merits stands dismissed. [ SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ] JUDGE ... AAA/912.11 8 9