The State's request for condonation of delay must be accompanied by a sufficient cause; bureaucratic inefficiencies do not justify tardiness in legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

M.M. NERLIKAR, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the non-applicant.

2. The present application is for condonation of delay of 397 days in preferring the criminal appeal. The learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant is Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and due to administrative difficulties, the appeal could not be filed within time. He has invited my attention to paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 of the present application which read as under:-

“3 It is submitted that thereafter the certified copy was supplied to the office of the local counsel MSEDCL, Bhandara and the counsel had suggested that the necessary action against the said order can be taken by MSEDCL, and therefore the legal opinion was sought from the advocate on panel by MSEDCL.

4 It is submitted that the panel advocate suggested that the MSEDCL/Appellant can challenge the judgment before the Hon'ble High Court by filing the criminal appeal and therefore, the said matter was entrusted to the present Counsel for filing of criminal Appeal in the month of November. It is submitted that thereafter the present Advocate informed to MSEDCL Bhandara that in order to prefer the criminal appeal, necessary arrangements are required to be made by providing certified copies, sets of Xerox documents etc. It is submitted that MSEDCL being a statutory body having its legal departments, provided the entire brief along with the documents to the present counsel in the month of November, 2018. Thereafter the present Criminal Appeal came to be drafted and the same is being filed before this Hon'ble court at the earliest opportunity, without causing any further delay.”

3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that he may be permitted to file additional affidavit to explain delay or at least be permitted to lead the evidence in support of the contentions which have been raised. He has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Officer, Antiyur Town Panchayat Vs. G. Arumugam (D) by LRs. 2015 (4) WBLR 7 . Paragraph No. 2 reads as under:-

“2. In the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant on 12.12.2006, it is brought to the notice of Court that Shri K.G. Ramasamy, who was working as Executive Officer of the Panchayat at the relevant time was suspended from service w.e.f. 12.07.2002 on allegations of corruption. Be that as it may, after going through the records and after hearing the counsel on both sides, we are satisfied that the delay occasioned only on account of the deliberate lapses on the part of the Executive Officer of the Panchayat at the relevant time. Who else are involved in the process, is not quite clear.”

He has further relied on the judgment of this Court in case of Shalen Dmello Vs. Ruby Victoria and others, 2023 DGLS (Bom.) 2844, wherein this Court has considered the ratio in the case of N. Balakrishnan Murthy Vs. M. Krishnamurhty in paragraph No. 9 which read as under:-

“9. It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases delay of very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the court accepts the explanation as sufficient it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such find