9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1554X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the appeal was instituted in the year 1997, but on account of negligence in taking steps to effect service upon the respondents, even the application seeking condonation of delay could not be disposed of till date. In the meanwhile, the landlosers were deprived of compensation awarded in their favour by the Reference Court. There is no case made out for condonation of delay of 589 days in instituting the appeal - application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed. - M. S. SONAK, J. Mr. Y.Y. Dabke, Asst. Govt. Pleader for the Applicant. Mr. Akshay Chikhale i/b Mr. P.B. Shah for the Respondents. P.C. : 1] Heard Mr. Yogesh Dabke, learned Asst. Government Pleader (AGP) for the applicant State. Mr. Akshay Chikhale, learned counsel for the respondents. 2] By Civil Application No. 1271 of 2000, the State applies for condonation of delay of 589 days in preferring this appeal against the impugned award dated 11 September 1995 made in Land Acquisition Reference No. 826 of 1990. 3] Although, the appeal accompanied by the civil application seeking condonation of delay was instituted on or about 17 November 1997, for several reasons, which shall be borne from the Roznama, the civil appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are quite casual and unverifiable. On basis of such routine averments, the State, cannot, in every case, plead that delay should be condoned, because it is an impersonal agency, which is required to act through its officers. The statements like there was heavy pressure of work or that some time is always required for taking decision in such matters are too vague to merit any acceptance, particularly when we are dealing with cases of landlosers, who have been deprived of compensation for several years. 7] In Pundlik Jalam Patil (Dead) By Lrs. vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon, Medium Project and anr. (2008) 17 SCC 448, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that pursing stale claims and multiplicity of proceedings in no manner subserves public interest. These public interest parameters ought to be kept in mind by the courts while exercising the discretion dealing with the application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act. Dragging the landlosers to courts of law years after the termination of legal proceedings would not serve any public interest. Settled rights cannot be lightly interfered with by condoning inordinate delay without there being any proper explanation of such dela ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government. 13. In our view, 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 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave 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 . 12] The Division Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra and ors. vs. Vithu Kalya Govari and ors. 2008(6) Mh.L.J. 239 has observed that the State is not expected to be negligent or to take no action for years and let the matters become time barred on account of its negligence and in action. The usual reason of official hassle or approval at different levels is hardly sufficient to justify condonation of delay of about two years. In law, advantage has accrued to the non applicants claimants and the same cannot be withdrawn in a mechanical manner and tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
