Bombay High Court
Deepak Champatraj Ajmera vs The Additional Collector ... on 29 March, 2016
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
{1} wp389-16
drp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.389 OF 2016
Deepak s/o Champatraj Ajmera PETITIONER
Age - 56 years, Occ - Business,
R/o Marwad Galli, Osmanabad
Taluka and District - Osmanabad
VERSUS
1. The Additional Collector, RESPONDENTS
Osmanabad, District - Osmanabad
2.
The Sub-Divisional Officer,
Osmanabad, District - Osmanabad
3. The Tahsildar, Tahsil Office,
Tuljapur, District - Osmanabad
.......
Mr. Abhijit S. More, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. S. K. Tambe, AGP for respondent-State
.......
[CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]
DATE : 29th MARCH, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with
consent of learned advocates for the parties.
2. Aggrieved by imposition of condition of furnishing bank
guarantee of `20,00,000/- for a period of three years, within a
period of thirty days, for condonation of sixty days' delay in filing
appeal, the petitioner is before this Court.
{2} wp389-16
3. It appears that the revenue has raised certain claims
against the petitioner aggregating to ` 3,32,29,000/-. It further
appears that against the order passed by Tahsildar, an appeal is
preferred, which is delayed by sixty days, as referred to above.
While deciding the application for condonation of delay, the
Additional Collector, under his order dated 14 th December, 2015,
interalia, has observed thus -
"vfiydkj gs Lor% ddZjksxkus xzLr vkgsr gh ,dp ckc
vfiydkjkal foyac {kekihr dj.;kl iqjs'kh okVrs- ijarq ;k
izdj.kke/;s lekfo'V vlysys o lkoZtfud fu/khpk Hkkx Bj.kk&;k
v'kk jDdespk ckstk ;k iqohZp rgflynkj ;kauh dsysyk vlY;kus
lnj izdj.kkr uSlfxZd U;k;kps n`'Vhus izdj.kke/;s vihy nk[ky
dj.;klkBhpk 60 fnolkpk foyac dkgh vVhoj {kekihr dj.;kpk
fu.kZ;kizr eh vkyks vkgs- "
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently submits
that having come to the conclusion that there is sufficient cause
shown, which is the reason for delayed approach before the
authority, imposition of condition was unwarranted and in excess
of powers of the authority. For said purpose, he purports to refer
to and rely on a decision of the Supreme Court in case of
"Basawraj and Another V. The Special Land Acquisition Officer" reported in
AIR 2014 SC 746. He particularly lays stress on paragraph No.15 of
{3} wp389-16
said judgment, which reads thus -
"15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the
effect that where a case has been presented in the court
beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as
to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an
adequate and enough reason which prevented him to
approach the court within limitation. In case a party is
found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part
in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have
not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a
justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be
justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by
imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to
be decided only within the parameters laid down by this
court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there
was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach
the court on time condoning the delay without any
justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to
passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions
and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the
legislature"
5. Learned advocate for the petitioner, as such, earnestly
requests that imposition of condition of submission of bank
guarantee being unsustainable should be quashed and set aside.
6. Learned AGP Mr. Tambe submits that having regard to the
magnitude of the amount to be recovered from the petitioner,
such a condition perhaps has been considered appropriate to be
{4} wp389-16
imposed by the authority. Learned AGP though has submitted so,
he is not in a position to dispute that the petitioner does have
sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
7. Having regard to the observations, as aforesaid, as are
appearing in paragraph No.15 of the Supreme Court Judgment,
it appears that imposition of condition of submission of bank
guarantee of `20,00,000/- deserves to be set aside.
8.
Accordingly, the impugned order, to the extent of said
impugned condition of furnishing bank guarantee of
`20,00,000/- stands quashed. It may, however be considered
that observations hereinbefore made in this order have limited
efficacy for decision in the writ petition and it is not an
impediment nor shall influence decision and order of the
authority on other applications in the proceedings. Writ petition,
as such, stands allowed to aforesaid extent. Rule is made
absolute accordingly.
[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]
drp/wp389-16
