The present application has been filed by the applicant-State for condonation of delay of 810 days caused in filing the aforesaid First Appeal on the grounds stated in the application, inter alia, the procedural delay in getting necessary approvals.
2. Heard learned AGP Ms. Trusha Mehta for the applicants.
3. As stated in the affidavit as well as in the application, the delay is of 810 days, and as could be seen, though the judgment and award was pronounced on 17.5.2008 and certified copy was applied on 21.7.2009 which was ready for delivery on 31.8.2009, it is stated that the District Government Pleader has received the certified copy of the judgment and award on 13.7.2009. It is required to be mentioned that thereafter also it was sent under Rule 131 of the Law Officers Rule to the Land Acquisition Officer in January 2010 and thereafter also the matter has not been followed up as it should have been. In fact, even after the Legal Department was sent the papers in March 2011, there is delay which cannot be said to have been sufficiently explained. Therefore, no sufficient cause as required under the law can be said to have been made out. The delay can be condoned and discretion can be exercised provided sufficient cause has been made out with justification or plausible explanation.
3. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judicial pronouncements has considered as to what would constitute sufficient cause and it has been clearly observed as to the test for considering sufficient cause. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 has observed as to what should be the approach and observation has been made that sufficient cause should be elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner. It does not justify exercise of such discretion in the present case as the explanation offered cannot be said to have fulfilled the criteria or the test for the sufficient cause.
4. Therefore, as no explanation or plausible explanation constituting sufficient cause is made out, the present application cannot be entertained and deserves to be rejected and accordingly stands rejected.
5. As the civil application for condonation of delay is rejected, First Appeal St. No. 479 of 2012 also stands dismissed.
(Rajesh H. Shukla, J.) (hn) Top