Dismissed

Jivhala Society for Mentally Handicapped v. Shri. Ughade Rahul Murlidhar and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Mar 2024WP/3582/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an impugned order that condoned a 10-month and 14-day delay in filing an appeal by a disabled employee. The Court held that the Appellate Authority did not exercise discretional powers perversely and the petitioner's medical condition constituted a sufficient cause.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no costs.

Jivhala Society for Mentally Handicapped Vs Shri… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

31-wp-3582-2024.doc

¶2

Nikita

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3582 OF 2024

¶5

Digitally signed by NIKITA NIKITA KAILAS KAILAS DARADE DARADE Date: 2024.03.14 17:08:45 +0530

¶6

Jivhala Society for Mentally
Handicapped… Petitioner

¶7

V/s.

¶8

Ughade Rahul Murlidhar and Ors.… Respondents

¶9

Mr. Tejas Deshmukh, a/w Mr. Harishchandra Chavan
for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. S. L. Babar, AGP for the State-Respondent.

¶11

CORAM:AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶12

DATED:MARCH 14, 2024

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

1.The petitioner is challenging the order dated 2nd November
2023, passed by Respondent No.2 condoning the delay of 10
months and 14 days in filing the appeal under the provisions of
Clause 83(1) of the Maharashtra Handicapped Special School and
Training Centre Code, 2018.

¶15

2.The respondent No.1’s services were terminated on 23rd July
2007. He filed the Appeal before Respondent No.2 on 7th June
2008. The Appellate Authority by order dated 15th January 2010
allowed the appeal however, this Court in Writ Petition No.1668 of
2010 set aside the order by directing the respondent No.1 to file
application for condonation of delay and to consider the appeal on

¶16

¶17

31-wp-3582-2024.doc

¶18

merits in case the Appellate Authority condones the delay. The
respondent No.1 failed to file application for condonation of delay,
hence, the Appellate Authority by order dated 16th February 2012
rejected the appeal.

¶19

3.The Respondent No.1, therefore, filed writ Petition No.8735
of 2015 which was allowed on 21st December 2022 by directing
the Appellate Authority to consider the application for condonation
of delay filed on 27th February 2012.

¶20

4.The Appellate Authority on 3rd July 2013 granted
opportunity of hearing to the parties and passed the impugned
order by condoning the delay.

¶21

5.The sufficient cause pleaded and accepted by the Appellate
Authority is that the respondent No.1 was suffering from Asthama.
He was under the medical supervision of Dr. Anil Kinikar during
the relevant time. He, therefore, could not perform daily duties
during the said period. The Tribunal accepted the reason furnished
by Respondent No.1 treating his sufficient cause under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act, 1963. Considering the nature of proceedings,
and the scheme of the Act, in my opinion, the Appellate Authority
has rightly exercised its power of condonation of delay. Even
otherwise it is well settled that the Supervisory Court shall not
interfered with the positive exercise of discretion by the
Sub-ordinate Court in case of condonation of delay, unless the
discretion exercised is perverse.

¶22

6.In my opinion, having considered the impugned order in the
context, reason furnished and applicability of the provisions of the

¶23

¶24

31-wp-3582-2024.doc

¶25

Maharashtra Handicapped Special School and Training Centre
Code, 2018, in my opinion, no interference under the
extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction is called for.

¶26

7. The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶27

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶28

Jivhala Society for Mentally Handicapped v. Shri. Ughade Rahul Murlidhar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jivhala Society for Mentally Handicapped v. Shri. Ughade Rahul Murlidhar 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

Baban Shankar Lavate Vs Vidhyarthi Sahayyak Mandal Sangli and Others

Shri. Gulab Abdulrajjak Mulla (Mujawar ) Vs Shri. Noormohamad Chandsaheb Mulla and Ors.

Life Insurance Corporation Vs State of Maharashtra Thru the Prin. Secretary Dept. of Co-Op. , Marketing and Textile and Ors.

Gujarati Kelavani Mandal vs the General Manager, Central Railway

D B Corp. Ltd. Thr Mir Anwar Ali Vs Asburt Gonsalves

Kedarrling Sahakari Dudh Vyayasayak Sanstha Myt Gelavade and Anr. Vs Joint Registrar Co-Operative Societies (Dairy)