Allowed

Bapusaheb Vishwanath Patare v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC21 Jan 2020WP/15284/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the rejection of a condonation of delay application. The court held that the delay was bona fide due to the pendency of the petitioner's appeal and representation, which the respondents failed to decide, and consequently allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order, and condoned the delay.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order is quashed, M. A. No. 368 of 2019 is allowed, the delay in preferring the original application is condoned, and the writ petition is allowed.

Bapusaheb Vishwanath Patare Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

1 wp 15284.19

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 15284 OF 2019

¶4

Bapusaheb Vishwanath Patare .. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and another .. Respondents

¶7

Shri Vitthal H. Dighe, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri P. G. Borade, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶8

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ. DATE : 21ST JANUARY, 2020.

¶9

FINAL ORDER :

¶10

. The petitioner has presented Original Application No. 701 of 2019. The delay was caused in presenting the original application. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay bearing M. A. No. 368 of 2019. The application of the petitioner for condonation of delay is rejected. Aggrieved thereby present petition.

¶11

Mr. Dighe, the learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, the Tribunal has taken a hyper technical approach while rejecting the application for condonation of delay. In fact, appeal filed by the petitioner was pending. It was not decided. The representation was also filed. Same was not attended. The petitioner was expecting decision in appeal. In view of that, the delay was caused.

¶12

2 wp 15284.19

¶13

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents/State submits that, there is the delay of 08 months 16 days in filing original application. There is no cogent reason assigned for not filing original application in time. The provision of Sec. 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 provides that if representation/application is filed and the same is not decided within six (06) months, then within a period of one year original application has to be filed. The delay is abnormal.

¶14

We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for respective parties.

¶15

It is trite that, whenever technical considerations and cause for substantial justice are pitted against each other, cause for substantial justice has to be sub-served. It is not necessary for a party to explain each and every day’s delay. The petitioner, it appears that, has filed representation. Same is pending. The petitioner has also filed appeal and same was pending. The respondents did not decide the appeal and representation. The petitioner bonafidely believed that atleast appeal would be decided. In view of that, the delay was caused. It cannot be said that the delay is inordinate one or the same is intentional one. However, same was on bonafide belief that, the respondents will not abdicate their duty in deciding it.

¶16

In the light of the above, impugned order is quashed and

¶17

3 wp 15284.19

¶18

set aside. M. A. No. 368 of 2019 is allowed. The delay caused in preferring original application is condoned. The writ petition accordingly is allowed. No costs.

¶19

[SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

¶20

bsb/Jan. 20

Bapusaheb Vishwanath Patare v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bapusaheb Vishwanath Patare v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Bhanudas Bhagwanta Putwad and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhausaheb Rambhau Nagare and Another Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Others

Mahavir Marotrao Bhumkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vilas Dadarao Kendhale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rajendra Vasantrao Marale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sunny Panditrao Misal and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others