1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11601 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 25940 OF 2004 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant (Orig.Resp.) VERSUS Madhav s/o Venkat Kendre & ors. ..Respondents (Claimant) ..... Shri K.J.Ghute Patil, AGP for the applicant Shri A.R.Kale h/f Shri R.B.Deshmukh, advocate for respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 6th November, 2009 PER COURT : 1 Perused. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Heard respective counsel for the parties. 2 The applicant has preferred the present application for 2 condonation of delay of 302 days occurred in filing the accompanying First Appeal, challenging the common judgment and award dated 14.8.2003 rendered by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedpur, Camp at Latur, in L.A.R. No. 2337 of 2001. 3 The applicant submits that the proposal for filing the appeal was received from Law and Judiciary Department, Aurangabad on 29.11.2003 and thereafter the same was allotted to the concerned Law Officer for drafting of appeal on 1.12.2003 and office of the Government Pleader, High Court, Bench at Aurangabad sent fax message dated 3.12.2003 to the District Government Pleader, Latur and copy to Collector, Latur for sending certified copy of the judgment and award. However, on the basis of the uncertified copy of the judgment and award the appeal was drafted. The certified copy of the judgment and award was received on 13.7.2004 and thereafter the appeal was filed before this court. 4 The applicant has stated the reasons for causing the delay in filing the accompanying First Appeal in para no.2 of the application. The applicant submits that the said delay caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal is neither willful nor 3 deliberate nor intentional and the same was caused due to administrative procedure required to be followed. The applicant also submits that the accompanying appeal is based on legal and sound grounds and applicant expects success therein. Hence, the applicant prayed that delay of 302 days caused in filing the accompanying appeal be condoned in the interest of justice. 5 Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that the present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and same be rejected. Learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the applicant has not explained day-to-day delay and submitted that the administrative procedure and official hassles are no grounds for condonation of delay. 6 Considering the rival submissions, at the out set, though the judgment and award came to be passed on 14.8.2003, there is no mention in the application when the applicant applied for certified copies thereof. Moreover, as rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the respondent, the applicant has not given the account of delay and has not explained the delay satisfactorily. 4 7 Besides that, the administrative procedure and official hassles cannot be construed as the grounds for condonation of delay. In the said context, reliance can be very well placed, on Division Bench judgment of this Court headed by Honourable Chief Justice reported at 2008(6) Mh.L.J.239 [State of Maharashtra and others vs Vithu Kalya Govari and others] that official hassle is no ground for the condonation of delay, as follows :- “ 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 have failed to show sufficient or reasonable cause (in fact they have shown no cause) for the condonation of delay, it is declined.” 5 8 Moreover, recently the Apex Court, in the case reported at 2008(6) ALT 38(SC) (Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by L.Rs. Vs. Exe. Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project and Anr.) by judgment dated 3.11.2008, held that it is the duty of the applicants though they are Government authorities, to explain the delay with cogent reasons and reliance can be very much placed on the observations made in paragraph No.24 thereof which reads as under : “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 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 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 though a feeble attempt by the learned counsel for the respondent was made to suggest collusion and fraud but without 6 any basis. We cannot entertain the submission made across the Bar without there being any proper foundation in the pleadings.” 9 In the circumstances, delay of 302 days occurred in filing the accompanying First Appeal cannot be construed as intentional and apparently is inordinate and same has not been explained satisfactorily and properly and, therefore, the present application bears no substance and same deserves to be rejected and accordingly same stands rejected. 10 In view of rejection of Civil Application for condonation of delay, nothing survives in the accompanying First Appeal under Stamp No. 25940 of 2004 and, therefore, registration thereof is refused. Rule is discharged accordingly. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) dbm/ca11601.04