Dismissed

Girish Bindumadhav Katti v. the Government of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC30 Oct 2007WP/6470/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court summarily rejected a writ petition by the petitioner challenging the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal's order barring his application by limitation. The Court held that condoning delay was not warranted given the petitioner's own admission of delay and his exhaustion of examination chances before filing the grievance.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was rejected summarily.

Girish Bindumadhav Katti Vs the Government of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 6470 OF 2007

¶3

 Shri Girish Bindumadhav Katti ] .. Petitioner

¶4

 Versus

¶5

 1. The Government of Maharashtra & anr.] .. Respondents

¶6

 Mr. M.D. Lonkar i/b Ms. P.P. Tendulkar for the
 petitioner.

¶7

 Mr. V.A. Sonpal, AGP, for the respondents No.1 & 2.

¶8

CORAM: S.B. MHASE &
D.G. KARNIK, JJ.

¶9

DATED: 30TH OCTOBER, 2007

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges

¶12

 the order dated 7th August, 2007, passed by the

¶13

 Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (for short "MAT")
 rejecting the original application as barred by
 limitation.

¶14

 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the
 parties. Counsel for the petitioner also admitted that
 the application before the MAT was clearly barred by

¶15

 time. He, however, submitted that the delay ought to
 have been condoned in view of the fact that the

¶16

 : 2 :

¶17

 petitioner had taken a chance in the next examination
 also. In our view, that is no ground for condonation of
 delay. In fact the petitioner has exhausted all three
 chances for passing the examination. Only after he
 failed in the third attempt he is making the grievance
 about his earlier representation not being considered.
 He should not have taken all the chances and then filed
 the petition before the MAT for consideration of his
 representation. In any event, that is no ground for
 condonation of delay.

¶18

 3. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the
 petition which is hereby rejected summarily.

¶19

 Sd/- Sd/-
 [D.G. KARNIK, J.] [S.B. MHASE, J.]

Girish Bindumadhav Katti v. the Government of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girish Bindumadhav Katti v. the Government of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner (Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan) and Anr. Vs N. Prasanna Kumari

The Commissioner (Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan) and Anr. Vs George Thadathil and Ors.

The Commissioner (Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathana) and Anr. Vs Aishath Subara and Ors.

Vijaykumar Jagpati Ram Vs Priydarshini Vidyamandir and Ors.

Sanjay Govind Bade and Anr. Vs the Collector, Kolhapur and Ors.

Umesh Prabhudas Patel Vs the Commissioner, Nashik Muncipal Corpn. and Ors.