State's Explanation for Delay in Appeals Accepted, Public Interest Emphasized

The court allowed the Civil Applications for condonation of delay, accepting the State's explanation for the procedural and administrative delays. The delay in filing the First Appeals was condoned, emphasizing the importance of public interest and procedural challenges faced by the State. The delays ranging from 622 to 925 days were deemed justified, and the State was permitted to proceed with the litigation.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.
2. Explanation and justification for the delay.
3. Legal precedents and principles for condonation of delay.
4. Impact on the claimants and public interest.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals:
The State of Gujarat filed Civil Applications for condonation of delay in preferring appeals against the award of the Reference Court. The delays ranged from 622 to 925 days. The applications were filed due to the delay in filing First Appeals against the judgment and award by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vyara.

2. Explanation and Justification for the Delay:
The delay was primarily attributed to procedural requirements and financial implications. The State detailed the movement of files between various departments, including the Narmada Water Resources, Water Supply, and Kalpasar Department, the Finance Department, and the Legal Department. The process involved obtaining legal opinions, budgetary sanctions, and the constitution of committees to decide on filing appeals. Significant dates and events were outlined, such as the receipt of legal opinions, committee resolutions, and final approvals for filing appeals.

The learned Assistant Government Pleader argued that the delay was due to the administrative process and financial considerations, which necessitated the formation of a committee to evaluate the case comprehensively. The committee eventually recommended filing the appeals.

3. Legal Precedents and Principles for Condonation of Delay:
The respondent-claimants opposed the condonation, arguing that the State failed to provide a detailed explanation for the delay, particularly for certain periods. They cited various judgments emphasizing the need for a day-to-day explanation of the delay, even for the State. Key judgments referenced included:

- New India Insurance Company vs. Smt. Keshar: Emphasized the need for detailed explanations for delays.
- State of Gujarat vs. Saiyed Mohd. Banquir: Highlighted the requirement for a day-to-day explanation.
- Office of the Chief Post Master General vs. Living Media Indian Ltd: Stressed that procedural delays should not be condoned without plausible explanations.
- Basawaraj vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer: Stated that negligence or lack of bona fide should not be condoned liberally.

The court also considered the principles laid down in Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad vs. Voltas Ltd, emphasizing that the sufficiency of the cause for delay must be established based on facts and that administrative delay alone is insufficient.

4. Impact on the Claimants and Public Interest:
The court acknowledged that the delay did not cause hardship to the claimants as the land was acquired for public purposes. The court emphasized that the decision-making process involved multiple departments and required careful consideration of financial implications. It was noted that the State acted diligently once the decision to appeal was made.

The court concluded that the delay should be construed liberally, considering the procedural complexities and the public interest involved. The explanation provided by the State was deemed sufficient, and the delay was condoned.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the Civil Applications for condonation of delay, accepting the State's explanation for the procedural and administrative delays. The delay in filing the First Appeals was condoned, and the State was permitted to proceed with the litigation. The ruling emphasized the importance of considering public interest and the procedural challenges faced by the State in such cases. The delay of 744 days, 683 days, 622 days, and 925 days in each batch of the First Appeals was condoned, and the rule was made absolute.

---