1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.56 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.22554 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... APPLICANTS VERSUS Anandrao s/o Marotirao Deshmukh ... RESPONDENT ----- Shri D.R. Korde , A.G.P. for the applicant ----- CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 7th November, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Perused. Heard learned A.G.P. for the applicant. 2. The applicant/ State has preferred the present application for condonation of delay of 1197 days in filing the accompanying First Appeal challenging the judgment and award passed by learned 4th Adhoc Additional District Judge, Nanded on 29.4.2004 in L.A.R. No.294/1999. 3. Learned A.G.P. submits that the reasons for delay 2 have been specified by the applicant in paragraph Nos.1 to 4 of the application. Learned A.G.P. further further submits that the applicant has explained the said delay satisfactorily. Moreover, learned A.G.P. also submits that the said delay is bonafide and same is neither intentional nor deliberate and, therefore, requested that same be condoned. Learned A.G.P. further submits that the said delay occurred due to official hassles and procedural aspects on administrative grounds, and, therefore also same is required to be condoned. 4. Considering the submissions in the present application and also considering the submissions advanced by learned A.G.P., at the outset, it is a matter of record that although the judgment and order was passed on 29.4.2004 in L.A.R. No. 294/1999, the applicant applied for the certified copy thereof on 7.5.2004 i.e. after the period of 15 days and thereafter the delay was caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal. Considering the reasons mentioned in para Nos.1 to 3 of the present application, it appears that the said reasons for the delay are not bonafide and it further appears that the delay of 1197 days caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal is willful, deliberate and intentional and certainly it is inordinate and hence, same cannot be condoned. 3 5. As regards the contention of the official hassles and administrative grounds, the said reasons cannot be construed as 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 the Hon’ble the Chief Justice in the judgment reported at 2008(6) Mh.L.J. 239 (State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Vithu Kalya Govari and others), in which it has been held 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 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 4 they have shown no cause) for the condonation of delay, it is declined.” 6. 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 5 counsel for the respondent was made to sugget 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.” 7. In the circumstances, the present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and hence, deserves to be rejected and the same stands rejected accordingly. Registration of First appeal stands refused. [SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] fmp/ca56.08