1 wp7062.11

     IN  THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

 WRIT PETITION NO.7062 OF 2011

Pitambar s/o Sitaram Ingale,

Age: 38 years, Occ: Service,

R/o. At N­9 K­34/5,

Pawan Nagar, H.U.D.C.O.

Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.             ...PETITIONER 

       VERSUS             

The President,

Dr. Babasabeb Ambedkar Smarak

Samiti, Fulle Nagar, Peer Bazar,

Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad

and others.                         ...RESPONDENTS

                     ...

Mr. S.R. Kolhare, Advocate for petitioners.

Mr. S.V. Gundre, Advocate holding for

Mr. K.G. Ghute Patil, AGP for respondent No.3.

                     ...

                         CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J.

                         DATE : 1ST AUGUST, 2012

PER COURT :

.

Heard   the   learned   Counsel   appearing   for 

the   petitioner   at   length.     Advocate   Mr.   S.V. 

Gundre   makes   a   statement   that,   earlier   Advocate 

Mr. V.D. Gunale appeared for the respondent Nos. 1 

2 wp7062.11

and   2,   however,   the   respondents   have   taken   no 

objection from him and therefore, he submits that, 

Advocate   Mr.   V.D.   Gunale   cannot   represent   the 

respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2.

The   learned   Counsel   for   the   petitioner 

invited   my   attention   to   the   averments   in   the 

application   for   condonation   of   delay   and   in 

particular paragraph­3 of the said application and 

submitted   that,   the   applicant­petitioner   was 

persuading the respondents to allow him to join as 

Peon,   however,   in   stead   of   acceding   to   the 

prayer/request   of   the   petitioner,   show   cause 

notice   was   issued   by   the   respondents   on   29th 

September, 2008.  The learned Counsel also invited 

my   attention   to   other   paragraphs   from   the   said 

application and submitted that, right of appeal of 

the petitioner to agitate his grievance could not 

be taken away merely on technicalities. Therefore, 

he submits that, the writ petition deserves to be 

allowed.

3 wp7062.11

3.

Since   none   appears   for   the   respondent 

Nos. 1 and 2, averments in this writ petition are 

remained uncontroverted. 

4.

Upon perusal of the impugned order, the 

School   Tribunal,   Aurangabad   in   paragraph­6   has 

held   that   ;   "It   is   settled   legal   position   that 

each   and   every   day   delay   has   to   be   properly 

explained by the applicant for ensuring that the 

discretionary   relief   of   condonation   of   delay   is 

clinched in his favour." This observation/finding 

recorded   by   the   tribunal   is   contrary   to   the 

various   judgments   of   the   Supreme   Court   and   also 

this Court, which takes a view that, "sufficient 

cause" as appearing in Section 5 of the Limitation 

Act,   should   receive   liberal   construction/ 

interpretation.   The   School   tribunal   has   not 

assigned any other reason and merely because day 

to day delay is not explained, has rejected the 

application for condonation of delay.

5.

Upon careful perusal of the averments in 

4 wp7062.11

the application which was filed for condonation of 

delay   before   the   school   tribunal,   this   Court   is 

convinced   that,   explanation   offered   by   the 

applicant   is   proper,   therefore,   the   school 

tribunal should have condoned the delay in filing 

the appeal. In fact, by delaying the filing of the 

appeal, the petitioner has not gained anything. On 

the contrary, he has put loss to himself since is 

out of employment.

.

At   this   juncture,  

  it   would   be 

appropriate   to   refer   to   some   of   the   important 

pronouncement by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the 

point;  

.

In   the   c