Bombay High Court
Ex. Engineer, Irrigation Project ... vs Dnyaneshwar Shivappa Suradkar ... on 8 April, 2021
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
1 963-CA-1959-18, 964,971-D.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
963 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1959 OF 2018
IN FAST/40179/2017
EX. ENGINEER, IRRIGATION PROJECT STRENGTHING
(MAJBUTIKARAN) DIVISION, OMERGA
VERSUS
BHAGWAN SUBHANA VAGARE AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Rahul Tambe,
Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Sanjay A. Wakure
AGP for Respondents No.2 and 3 : Mr. B.V. Virdhe
...
964 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1957 OF 2018
IN FAST/40185/2017
EX. ENGINEER, IRRIGATION PROJECT STRENGTHING
(MAJBUTIKARAN) DIVISION, OMERGA
VERSUS
DIGAMBAR SHIVAPPA SURADKAR AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Rahul Tambe,
Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Sanjay A. Wakure
AGP for Respondents No.2 and 3 : Mr. Y.G. Gujrathi
...
971 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1953 OF 2018
IN FAST/39203/2017
EX. ENGINEER, IRRIGATION PROJECT STRENGTHING
(MAJBUTIKARAN) DIVISION, OMERGA
VERSUS
DNYANESHWAR SHIVAPPA SURADKAR AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Rahul Tambe,
Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Sanjay A. Wakure
AGP for Respondents No.2 and 3 : Mr. B.V. Virdhe
...
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1961 OF 2018
IN FAST/40174/2017
EX. ENGINEER, IRRIGATION PROJECT STRENGTHING
(MAJBUTIKARAN) DIVISION, OMERGA
::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2021 00:07:08 :::
2 963-CA-1959-18, 964,971-D.odt
VERSUS
MAHAVIR SHIVRAM POUL AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Rahul Tambe,
Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Sanjay A. Wakure
AGP for Respondents No.2 and 3 : Mr. S.S. Dande
...
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR, J.
DATE : 8th APRIL, 2021
PER COURT :-
1. Civil Application No. 1961 OF 2018 in First Appeal Stamp No.
40174 of 2017 is not on Board. On mentioning taken on Board.
2. These applications are filed by applicant - Acquiring Body for
condonation of delay in filing the first appeals challenging legality
and validity of the Judgment and Award dated 14-12-2012 passed
by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmabad,
District Osmanabad, in LAR Nod. 240, 247, 253 and 239 of 2004.
The delay is of 1652 days in filing the appeals. The delay is
inordinate. The reasons stated in the application are in respect of
procedural formalities needs to be completed by the Government
Agency.
3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
4. Learned counsel appearing for applicant-Acquiring Body states
that in the application for condonation of delay the reasons stated
for condondation of the same. He states that reasons are justifiable
and sufficient for condonation of delay. He further states that delay
::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2021 00:07:08 :::
3 963-CA-1959-18, 964,971-D.odt
is not intentional but bonafide. It is further pointed out that the
appeal/s arising out of the same Award, this Court has admitted the
same.
5. On the other side no reply has been filed by any of the
respondents opposing the present application/s, however, orally the
present application/s have been opposed on the ground that the
delay is inordinate and if this Court is come to the conclusion that
to condone the delay in that event heavy cost may be imposed on
the applicant-Acquiring Body.
6. After going through the contents of the applications, which
are mainly on procedural aspects, however, looking to the
inordinate delay, this explanation cannot be considered. In a recent
Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of India, in the case of
State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Bherulal1 has held that :-
"It is the right time to inform all the government
bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that
unless they have reasonable and acceptable
explanation for the delay and there was bonafide
effort, there is no need to accept the usual
explanation that the file was kept pending for
several months/years due to considerable degree of
procedural red- tape in the process. The
government departments are under a special
obligation to ensure that they perform their duties
with diligence and commitment. Condonation of
1(2020) 10 SCC, 654
::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2021 00:07:08 :::
4 963-CA-1959-18, 964,971-D.odt
delay is an exception and should not be used as an
anticipated benefit for government departments.
The law shelters everyone under the same light and
should not be swirled for the benefit of a few."
5. After considering the request made in the application and in
view of the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case
of State of Madhya Pradesh (Supra), I am of the opinion that the
delay on the ground of procedural aspects cannot be considered,
however, in view of the said Judgment delay is to be condoned on a
condition of depositing amount of Rs.5000/- towards cost, to be
recovered from erring Officer/s. Accordingly, I proceed to pass
following order.
:: ORDER ::
(i) The Civil Applications are allowed.
ii) The delay caused in filing the first
appeal/s is hereby condoned subject to deposit
of Rs.5000/- to be paid to the claimant/s,
within a period of four weeks from today.
Iii) The Registry is directed to register the
First Appeal/s on furnishing receipt of payment
of cost to the claimant/s and place the same
for admission and further consideration.
(iv) The Civil Applications stand disposed of.
( ANIL S. KILOR )
JUDGE
mtk
