1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION F. NO.2957/2010 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.12530/2010 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through its Regional Officer ...Versus... Sau. Pritabai w/o Kamlakar Salve and others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. [Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Adv. for applicant/appellant] [Shri M.A. Kadu, AGP for respdt. Nos.3 & 4] CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 29.04.2011. This is an application for condonation of delay of 820 days in filing the present first appeal. Heard learned Counsel for the rival parties. Learned Counsel for the applicant/appellant invited my attention to paragraph Nos.6 to 9 of the application for condonation of delay. Learned Counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the application inviting my attention to the reply filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is seen that the award was passed on 24.1.2008 and appellant was informed about it on 2 28.1.2008 by the Counsel. Still the certified copy thereof was applied for on 29.12.2008 i.e. almost after eleven months for which there is no explanation. The pleading in the application for delay shows that thereafter certified copy was sent to the head office on 16.1.2009 and the head office kept the proposal for filing appeal pending with it till 5.2.2010 i.e. one year. In the first place, there is no explanation for this one year after the head office (legal) received the certified copy in January 2009. Secondly, this Court does not believe that a period one year is required to give legal opinion for filing appeal. This is therefore a fit case where the appellant deserves to be directed to hold enquiry against the persons responsible for not giving the legal opinion for filing appeal or otherwise for a period of one year i.e. from 16.1.2009 till 5.2.2010. Not only that after giving the opinion on 5.2.2010 papers of appeal were given for filing on 4.3.2010 and still the appeal was actually filed on 22.7.2010 i.e. after almost five months, for which there is no explanation. The lame explanation appears to be that the court fees were not received for five months. The matter does not stop here. The appellant has deliberately suppressed material facts from this Court which a Government Corporation is not supposed to do as an ideal 3 litigant. The facts narrated in para 5 and 6 of the reply filed by claimants/respondents were very much within the knowledge of the appellant. But the appellant indulged in suppressio veri suppressio falsi. I quote paragraph Nos.5 and 6 from the reply thus: 5. ...It is submitted that the respondents No.1 & 2 received the enhanced compensation as per award dated 24-1-2008 in Execution Case No.136/2008 on 13-4-2009. Some amount of interest has not yet paid by the appellant. Appellant had appeared in the execution proceeding through its counsel. From this it is clear that all concern officers including regional office of the applicant well aware about the passing of award and now they cannot turn down by submitting the various reasons as mentioned in the application. So the reasons and cause mentioned in the application are baseless and false.... 6. ...At the time of depositing the amount appellant neither had deposited said amount under protest nor raised any objection for its withdrawal. During the depositing the amount applicant did not mentioned that 4 it is intended to file appeal and reserving its right to appeal. Applicant even did not ask for the surety at the time of withdrawal of the amount.... There is no explanation as to why the appellant/Corporation chose to suppress these facts from this Court while drafting the application for condonation of delay. Had the reply not been filed or the respondents not appeared to oppose the application for condonation of delay as happened in First Appeal No.6/2011, this Court would not have known about all these acts which are serious. It is significant to note that first the Corporation and its officers have allowed the claimants to go away with the entire amount deposited without objecting in the executing Court or without making any application for obtaining security or otherwise and/or to apply for extension of time after depositing of money for getting the stay order from the High Court by filing first appeal. In the light of the above facts, the only inference that can be drawn is the deposited amount was deliberately allowed to be given away. But now the claim is made before me by the learned Counsel for the appellant in paragraph No.10 of the application that the appellant/Corporation is very much worried about the public money. The 5 delay of 820 days caused in filing appeal is not for any bona fide reasons but for the aforesaid serious acts of misconduct on the part of the appellant/Corporation right from the head office till lower office who acted hand-in-glove with the claimants. It appears that the only intention to file appeal is to overcome any adverse action in future that the concerned persons in the Corporation could face right from the head office till the lower office. This Court does not want to become a silent spectator to all these happenings and finds that this application is nothing but an abuse of process of Court and is liable to be dismissed. The appeal was filed after one and half year after disbursement of the amount to the decree holders and also upon paying the court fees in this Court. In my opinion, following order would subserve the ends of justice. O R D E R (i) Application for condonation of delay is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) payable to the State of Maharashtra  respondent No.3. (ii) The costs shall be recovered after identifying the concerned officers right from the head office (legal) till the lower office of the appellant/Corporation upon holding an 6 enquiry. Further the appellant shall proceed against them for the acts of misconduct. The compliance report be made to this Court within a period of twelve weeks from today. (iii) The appellant/Corporation shall recover the amount of court fees from the identified concerned officers from their salary after giving an opportunity of being heard within a period of twelve weeks from today. (iv) Consequently, First Appeal St. No.12530/2010 is dismissed. JUDGE ssw