Dismissed

Maratha Yuvak Mandal v. Vitthal Tukaram Chobe and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Sept 2009LPA/197/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant challenged a Single Judge order disallowing an appeal by non-production of a condonation application. Court dismissed the appeal, holding that since the Division Bench directed the tribunal to hear on merits and there was no dispute on finality, the issue on condonation required no merits.

What did the court decide?

Appeal against the order dated 3rd August, 2009 is dismissed. There are no merits.

Maratha Yuvak Mandal Vs Vitthal Tukaram Chobe and Ors. — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 197 of 2009

¶4

IN WRIT PETITION NO. 8459 of 2009 WITH CA. NO. 233 OF 2009 IN LPA 197/2009

¶5

Maratha Yuvak Mandal ....Appellant v/s. Vitthal Tukaram Chobe & ors. ....Respondents

¶6

Shri I.M.Khairdi for the appellant. Shri Nitin Jamdar for respondent no.1.

¶7

CORAM:- SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

¶8

DATED:- September 01, 2009.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

The present Appeal is directed against the order dated 3^rd August, 2009 whereby the Learned Single Judge has upheld the decision of the School Tribunal rejecting the application filed by the Petitioner to dismiss the appeal of the Respondent No. 1 on the ground that the same was not accompanied with an application for condonation of delay although the appeal was barred by limitation.

¶11

¶12

According to Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, the order suffers from an error of jurisdiction in as much as there has to be an application for condonation of delay and then alone the question of condonation of delay or otherwise can arise.

¶13

Generally, compliance of such a condition would be necessary, but the facts of the present case are peculiar. Earlier, the Respondent before us had taken out proceedings before the Education Officer which became subject matter of the Writ Petition No. 647/2009 filed by the Petitioner which was disposed of by a detailed Judgment of this Court dated 22^nd January, 2009 and the Court directed as under:-

¶14

“Hence, the Petition succeeds and the same is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 5/1/2009 is quashed and set aside with liberty to respondent no.4 to approach the School Tribunal with an appeal under Section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act and if such an appeal is filed within a period of four weeks from today, we direct the School Tribunal to decide the same on its own merits. On the issue of condonation of delay for filing the appeal, the period of pendency of proceedings before the Education Officer as well as before this court shall be taken into consideration.” (emphasis supplied)

¶15

From the bare reading of the above order, it is clear that the Division Bench has directed the School Tribunal to hear the matter on merits in the event the Respondent No. 1 was to file the appeal within a period of four weeks from the date of the order. The Respondent No. 1 admittedly lodged his appeal before the Tribunal within four weeks. If this direction of the Division Bench was contrary to law as now contended by the Petitioner, the Petitioner should

¶16

¶17

have challenged this order in accordance with law. There is no dispute before us that this order of the Division Bench has attained finality and the Learned Single Judge has followed the directions. No merits. Dismissed.

¶18

Civil Application does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of accordingly.

¶19

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶20

A.M.KHANWILKAR, J

Maratha Yuvak Mandal v. Vitthal Tukaram Chobe and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maratha Yuvak Mandal v. Vitthal Tukaram Chobe and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sea Star Habitat Private Limited and Anr. Vs Jean Vinay Kalgutkar and Ors.

Anilkumar Devappa Ayare Vs Idbi Bank Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Dr. Allwyn Placidus Mascarenhas and 3 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Anil Pundlik Abhave Vs M/S.Vidya Enterprises and Anr.

Martin Daniel Bhalerao Vs D B Power Electronics (P) Ltd.

Maratha Yuvak Mandal Vs Vitthal Tukaram Chobe and Ors.