Disposed¶28

Nitin Vilas Shinde v. Vasantdada Patil Prathisthan Thr Its Chairman and Ors.

Condonation of delay – Service law

Bombay HC20 Jan 2026WP/9133/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court writ petitions (WP 9141/2024 - Milind Chandrakant Murkar; WP 9133/2024 - Nitin Vilas Shinde) versus Vasantdada Patil Pratisthan; condonation of delay before University and College Tribunal Mumbai; sufficient cause; liberal construction of cause for condonation; termination of clerical employees; non-supply of documents by employer; preservation of statutory right of appeal; order dated March 23, 2026 by Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Order set aside; delay in filing the Appeals condoned; Petitioners given liberty to move the Learned University and College Tribunal, Mumbai for consideration of their Appeals on merits, with no opinion expressed on the merits. ¶28

Nitin Vilas Shinde vs Vasantdada Patil Prathisthan Thr Its Chairman and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the Impugned Order of the Learned University and College Tribunal, Mumbai rejecting condonation of delay sought by the Petitioners in their Appeals was rightly passed.

¶14

Court's answer

Considering that the delay is 106 days (Milind Chandrakant Murkar) and 90 days (Nitin Vilas Shinde), that the Tribunal itself observed the delay is neither very huge nor very short, and that the documents sought by one Petitioner were not made available even at the time of filing of the Appeal, a case was made out in the interest of justice to condone the delay, without any comment on the merits.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

This Court endorsed the view recorded in paragraph 16 of the Impugned Order that if a cause for condonation of delay exists, it must be liberally construed and a liberal approach taken; while ignorance of law is no excuse, in the peculiar facts of the case it was in the interest of justice to condone the delay.

¶22

Key takeaways

The delay was condoned also because the documents relating to the Petitioners' termination ought to have been made available to them by Respondent No.1 in any case in the interest of transparency, yet they had to run from pillar to post to collect the documents and demonstrate their relevance and bearing on their statutory right to file the Appeals.ratio¶26
The merits of the matter cannot be gone into at this stage; purely to enable the statutory right to Appeal not being lost to the Petitioners, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Impugned Order is set aside with the delay condoned, giving the Petitioners liberty to move the Learned Tribunal for consideration of their Appeal on merits.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Condonation of delay - Service law - Two clerks of Respondent No.1 (Vasantdada Patil Pratisthan), whose services stood terminated, filed Appeals before the University and College Tribunal, Mumbai with delays of 106 days and 90 days; the Tribunal rejected condonation. Bombay High Court (Somasekhar Sundaresan, J.) found that the delay is neither very huge nor very short, the documents sought were not made available even at the time of filing the Appeal, and the employer ought in any case to have made available the documents relating to the termination in the interest of transparency; a cause for condonation must therefore be liberally construed - ignorance of law is no excuse, but the peculiar facts justified condonation. The Impugned Order was set aside and the delay condoned without any comment on the merits; the Petitioners were left free to seek consideration of their Appeals on merits and both writ petitions were finally disposed of.

¶1

36-WP-9141-2024+.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 9141 OF 2024

¶4

Milind Chandrakant Murkar …Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Vasantdada Patil Pratisthan Throu. Its Chairman / …Respondents Sec And Ors

¶7

WITH

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 9133 OF 2024

¶9

Ms. Trupti Chavan, for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Shailesh S. Pathak, a/w T.R. Yadav, for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.

¶11

Mr. P.V. Nelson Rajaj, AGP for Respondent-State in WP/9141/24. Smt. V. R. Raje, AGP for Respondent-State in WP/9133/24.

¶12

CORAM : SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J. DATE : March 23, 2026

¶13

ORDER :

¶14

The short issue that falls for consideration is whether the Impugned Order rejecting condonation of delay sought by the Petitioner in the captioned Petitions was rightly passed by the Learned University and College Tribunal, Mumbai.

¶15

Digitally signed by ASHWINI ASHWINI JANARDAN JANARDAN VALLAKATI VALLAKATI Date: 2026.03.26 12:36:03 +0530

¶16

Learned Advocate for the Petitioner has taken me through the record. It is seen that the Petitioners are engaged as Clerks on a

¶17

permanent basis with Respondent No.1. It is apparent that the Page 1 of 3 March 23, 2026

¶18

Ashwini Vallakati

¶19

36-WP-9141-2024+.doc

¶20

Petitioners have been struggling to obtain copies of the requisite documents and are also unaware as to how precisely they need to go about challenging their termination. Learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 has vehemently defended the order, submitting that sufficient cause for condonation of delay has not been shown.

¶21

The perusal of the Impugned Order would indicate that it contains an unexceptionable outline of the law governing condonation of delay. However, considering that the period of delay is 106 days in the case of Milind Chandrakant Murkar and 90 days in the case of Nitin Vilas Shinde, and also taking into account the observations by the Learned Tribunal that the delay is neither very huge nor very short, in the interest of justice, considering that the documents sought by one of the Petitioners had not been made available even at the time of filing of the Appeal, I am satisfied that a case has been made out, without any comment on the merits of the case, that the delay could be condoned.

¶22

As rightly observed in paragraph 16 of the Impugned Order, if a cause for condonation of delay exists, it must be liberally construed and a liberal approach must be taken. While it is correct that ignorance of law is no excuse, in the peculiar facts of the case, considering the positions in which the Petitioners were carrying out their services with

¶23

Page 2 of 3 March 23, 2026

¶24

Ashwini Vallakati

¶25

36-WP-9141-2024+.doc

¶26

Respondent No.1, it would be in the interest of justice to condone the delay. This approach is adopted since the documents relating to their termination ought to have been made available to the Petitioners by Respondent No.1 in any case, in the interest of transparency, but it appears that the Petitioners have had to run from pillar to post to collect the documents and also demonstrate the relevance of the documents and their bearing on their statutory right to file the Appeals.

¶27

The merits of the matter cannot be gone into, which too has been correctly identified in the Impugned Order. At this stage, without any opinion being expressed on the merits of the matter, purely to enable the statutory right to Appeal not being lost to the Petitioners, the Impugned Order is set aside, with the delay being condoned, giving the Petitioners liberty to move the Learned Tribunal for consideration of their Appeal on merits.

¶28

Both the captioned Petitions are finally disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶29

All actions required to be taken pursuant to this order shall be taken upon receipt of a downloaded copy as available on this Court’s website.

¶30

[ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.]

¶31

Page 3 of 3 March 23, 2026

¶32

Ashwini Vallakati

Nitin Vilas Shinde v. Vasantdada Patil Prathisthan Thr Its Chairman and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Vilas Shinde v. Vasantdada Patil Prathisthan Thr Its Chairman and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Joy Builders vs Mayadevi Shubhkaran Makharia

Vinod Dilip MohitePatil vs Ghanshyam R Upadhyay

Khimji Lakhamshi Shah vs Kalpana Rajendra Gonjari

Skm Steels Limited vs Lodha Developers Limited (Formerly known as Macrotech Developers Limited)

State Bank of India Employees Raag Vihar Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs Aditya Developers

Shresth Detective and Securities Private Limited vs Fis Payment Solutions and Services India Private Limited