1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2312 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.4081 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra & anr. ... APPLICANTS VERSUS Navnath s/o Kundalik Kekan ... RESPONDENT ----- Shri K.B. Choudhari, A.G.P. for the applicant Shri P.K. Lakhotiya, Advocate holding for Shri N.P. Bangar, Advocate for the respondent ----- CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 7th September, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Perused. Heard learned A.G.P. for the applicant. 2. The applicants have preferred the present application for condonation of delay of 585 days in filing the accompanying First Appeal under Stamp No.4081/2008, challenging the judgment and award passed by learned 7th Adhoc Additional District Judge, Beed, in L.A.R. No.321/1998, on 12.8.2005. 2 3. The applicants contend that, after passing the impugned judgment and award on 12.8.2005, the applicants applied for certified copy thereof on 16.8.2005 which were ready on 21.4.2006 and same were collected by the applicants on 16.6.2006. Thereafter the applicants approached the District Government Pleader and obtained the legal opinion for filing the First Appeal. The District Government Pleader recommended for filing the appeal. Thereafter the applicants submitted the proposal through District Government Pleader to the Joint Secretary, Law & Judiciary Department, who sanctioned the same on 18.9.2006 and same was received by the office of Government Pleader on 19.9.2006. Thereafter the appeal was drafted by the concerned A.G.P. and the accompanying appeal came to be filed on 21.2.2008. 4. The applicants submit that, the delay caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional, but same was caused because of procedural requirements and due to administrative grounds. Hence, the applicants pray that the said delay be condoned ion the interest of justice. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent opposed the 3 present application vehemently and submitted that the delay occurred in filing the accompanying First Appeal has not been explained by the applicants properly. It is further submitted that the delay caused because of procedural requirements and administrative grounds is no ground for condoning the delay. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the ratio laid down and observations made in the case reported at 2008(6) Mh.L.J. 239 (State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Vithu Kalya Govari and others), and also relied upon the ratio laid down and observations made by the Hon’ble 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.). Accordingly, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and, therefore, same may kindly be rejected. 6. Considering the rival submissions, it is seen from the account of the dates itself that although the certified copies of judgment and award was ready on 21.4.2006, the applicants collected the ame after two months i.e. on 16.6.2006 and the applicants have not explained the delay. Moreover, it is further seen that although the sanctioned proposal was received by the office of Government Pleader on 19.9.2006, it is nowhere stated in the application that when the concerned A.G.P. drafted the said 4 appeal. The application is silent in respect of the date of receipt of the Court Fees. Moreover, the accompanying First Appeal appears to have been filed on 21.2.2008 i.e. almost about 1 ½ years from the receipt of proposal and sanction by the Government Pleader’s office and the said delay has not been explained by the applicant. Hence, reliance cam 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), (supra) 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 5 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.” 7. 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 : “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 6 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 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.”. 8. In the circumstances, applying the parameters of the aforesaid observations in the instant case, it is apparent that there is laxity on the part of the applicant and, therefore, the present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits since the applicants have failed to explain the delay caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal properly. Hence, the present application deserves tobe rejected and same stands rejected accordingly. 9. Since the present Civil Application for condonation of delay is rejected, nothing survives in First Appeal Stamp No. 4081/2007 and, therefore, registration thereof is refused. [SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] fmp/ca2312.08