- (1.) This first appeal is reported by the Stamp Reporter to be beyond time by 161 days from 8.2.2010. It is also reported that there is deficiency of Rs. 10335/- in payment of the Court fee according to valuation of the appeal, and accordingly the appeal is reported to be defective one and has been filed alongwith delay condonation application No. 205599 of 2010 supported by affidavit. I have heard Sri Shrish Chandra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant-State of U.P. and perused the reasons given in the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application explaining the delay.
(2.) It appears from the averments made in the affidavit that there might not be negligence on part of the State for the period upto 31.12.2009. But thereafter delay has not properly been explained and cursory statement has been made to cover up the delay in filing the appeal. There is no reasonable explanation as to why appeal was not filed immediately after 31.12.2009. It is beyond comprehension why the Government did not grant permission for filing the appeal immediately after 31.12.2009 which was allegedly granted on 7.4.2010 which is said to have been received alongwith copy of the letter dated 21.4.2010. There is also no explanation given as to why the Executive Engineer, East Ganga Canal Construction Division-7, district Bijnor after receipt of the permission/had not filed the appeal immediately and instructed the Assistant Engineer, East Ganga Canal Construction Division only after about a month for filing the appeal.
(3.) The statement made in paragraph No. 13 of the affidavit that from 15.5.2010 to 30.6.2010 the officials of the department were busy in Janganana of the country and as such could not approach the Court to file the appeal, is very vague. This paragraph does not explain at all as to whether the deponent of the affidavit was actually involved in Janganana or not. Even if he was involved in Janganana, it is not explained in the affidavit as to why no other person who was not involved in Janganana was not sent for filing the appeal. Even if this period is overlooked, admittedly the Court had opened on July 1, 2010, yet the official allegedly contacted office of the standing counsel on 9.7.2010.;