1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1121 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL (Stamp) No.1037 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra appellant-respondent through Collector, Latur vs Babu Nivaruti Shinde respondent-claimant WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1126 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL (St.) NO.1047 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra appellant-respondent through Collector, Latur versus Maroti s/o Laxman Telange respondent-claimant WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1128 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL (St.) NO.1053 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Latur. appellant-respondent versus Venkat Vishwanath Panchal respondent-claimant --- Shri K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for the appellant-State. Respondent in respective matter absent, although served. Coram : Shrihari P. Davare, J. Date : 27th August, 2010 P.C. 01. Heard learned A.G.P. for the applicant. This is an application preferred by the applicant for 2 condonation of delay of 3059 days caused in filing first appeals under stamp numbers, challenging the judgments and awards dated 8.6.1998 separately passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur, in L.A.R. Nos. 322/1991, 325/1991 and 323/1991. 02. Learned A.G.P. submits that after passing the impugned judgments and awards, the applicant applied for certified copies thereof on 30.1.2006 and received the same on 1.2.2006 and thereafter submitted the proposal to the Law and Judiciary Department for sanction through the office of the Government Pleader. The Law and Judiciary Department sanctioned the proposal and forwarded it to the office of the Government Pleader and thereafter, the Government Pleader assigned the First Appeals for drafting to concerned A.G.P. Accordingly, concerned A.G.P. drafted the First Appeals, and accordingly, accompanying First Appeals came to be filed. Hence, it is submitted that the delay caused in filing the accompanying First Appeals is due to time consumed in administrative procedure and also due to heavy work load and non-availability of certified copies and difference chart and, therefore, it is submitted that the said delay is not wilful, deliberate and intentional. 3 03. The official hassles and administrative procedure are no grounds for condonation of delay and reliance can be placed upon the observations made in the case reported at 2008 (6) Mh.L.J., State of Maharashtra & others vs. Vithu Kalya Govari and others, delivered by the Division Bench of this Court, and also upon the observations made 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. 04. On perusal of the averments made in the present applications and also after considering the rival contentions of both the parties, at the out set, it is seen that although the judgments and awards were passed on 8.6.1998, the applicant applied for certified copies thereof on 30.1.2006 i.e. almost after 5-1/2 years and no satisfactory reasons have been put forward by the applicant for the said delay in applying for the certified copies. 05. Moreover, it is now settled principle that official hassles and administrative procedure are no grounds for condonation of delay and reliance can be very well placed on the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court headed by Hon'ble Chief 4 Justice in the case reported at 2008 (6) Mh.L.J. 239, State of Maharashtra and ors. vs. Vithu Kalya Govari and ors (supra)., 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 received 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." 06. 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. (supra), 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: 5 "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 Government 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 any basis. We cannot entertain the submission made across the Bar without there being any proper foundation in the pleadings." 07. In the circumstances, applying the said parameters, in the instant case, it is apparently clear that the procedural aspects, administrative grounds and official hassles cannot be construed as ground for condonation of delay. Besides, it is apparent that there is laxity on the part of the applicant and if the present applications are allowed, prejudice would certainly be caused to the respondents. 08. Hence, considering the factual position as well as the legal position, it is apparent that present 6 applications bear no substance and same are devoid of any merits and same deserve to be rejected and, therefore, same stand rejected accordingly. The court fee be refunded to the applicant, as per rules. Present applications stand disposed of, accordingly. (Shrihari P. Davare, J.) pnd/ca1121.07