Bombay High Court
Suryakanta Tarachand Bobde vs Additional Commissioner, Nagpur ... on 9 December, 2016
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale
1 jg.wp2081.15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2081 OF 2015
Suryakanta Tarachand Bobde
aged about : Major, Occu : household,
r/o : Sawal, Post : Sawal Taluka :
Karanja(D), District : Wardha ... Petitioner
// VERSUS //
(1) Additional Commissioner,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
(2) Additional Collector, Wardha
(3) Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Wardha. ... Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. P. S. Chaudhari with Shri S. A. Chaudhari, Advocates for the
petitioner
Shri A. M. Kadukar, AGP for the respondent nos. 1 and 2
None for the respondent no. 3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.
DATE : 9-12-2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. Heard Mrs. P. S. Chaudhari appearing with Shri S. A.
Chaudhari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kadukar,
learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 and 2.
2 jg.wp2081.15.odt
3. None appears for the respondent no. 3.
4.. The petitioner challenges the order dated 9-3-2015 passed
by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur thereby
rejecting the application seeking condonation of delay caused in filing
the appeal before the Commissioner. Perusal of the material placed
on record shows that the petitioner was challenging the order passed
by the Additional Collector, Wardha dated 8-10-2014 thereby
declaring the petitioner disqualified for holding the post of Member,
Gram Panchayat. It was the allegation against the petitioner that the
petitioner failed to submit the certificate of having constructed and
using a toilet within stipulated period. It may not be necessary to
refer to the other details. Suffice to say that the petitioner while
presenting the appeal before the Additional Commissioner submitted
an application for condonation of delay. It is stated in the application
that on 8-10-2014, the Additional Collector, Wardha passed the order
and it required some time to get knowledge of the order. As soon as
the petitioner received the knowledge, immediately, an application
seeking certified copy was filed. The certified copy of the order of the
Additional Collector was received on 20-10-2014. Immediately, from
the second day i.e. from 21-10-2014 to 26-10-2014, there were Diwali
3 jg.wp2081.15.odt
holidays and being the festival celebrated at large scale in village
area, the petitioner could not approach the authority immediately
and certain delay was caused. It was further stated in the application
that meantime, the petitioner had been to her brother's village for
'Bhaubeej'. It was also submitted that the petitioner was also facing
financial constraints. Thus, on these grounds, the petitioner prayed
for condonation of delay caused in filing the appeal. The Additional
Commissioner initially referred to the brief facts of the appeal and
then holding that the petitioner failed to show any justifiable reasons
for filing the appeal within prescribed period rejected the application.
The learned Additional Commissioner found that though the
prescribed period of filing appeal is 15 days, the appeal is presented
nearly after two months.
5. Mrs. Chaudhari, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the Additional Commissioner grossly erred in rejecting
the application. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that learned Additional Commissioner mechanically rejected the
application without considering the detail grounds submitted in the
application causing delay in filing the appeal.
4 jg.wp2081.15.odt
6. On perusal of the application and the order passed by the
learned Additional Commissioner impugned in the petition, I find
considerable merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioner. It was specifically stated in the application that the delay
caused on various grounds, namely, some period was consumed for
receiving the certified copy, secondly, the petitioner had been to her
brother's village for celebrating Bhaubeej for considerable period. It
was also stated in the application that the certified copy was received
on 20-10-2014 and for a period of nearly a week from 21-10-2014 to
26-10-2014, the petitioner occupied in Diwali festival activities. The
ground of financial constraints was also referred to in the application.
On the backdrop of these grounds, the observation of the learned
Additional Commissioner that no justifiable reasons were submitted in
the application is unsustainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner
was justified in submitting that the learned Additional Commissioner
adopted hyper-technical approach instead of considering the delay
application on its merits, namely, the bonafide and justifiable reasons
submitted by the petitioner causing delay in filing the appeal.
Considering all these aspects, I am of the opinion that the order
passed by the learned Additional Commissioner impugned in the
5 jg.wp2081.15.odt
petition is unsustainable. In the result, order passed by the Additional
Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur dated 9-3-2015 is quashed
and set aside. The application of condonation of delay presented
before the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur is
allowed and the Commissioner is further directed to decide the appeal
on merits as expeditiously as possible, needless to state that by giving
equal opportunities of hearing to the respective parties to the appeal.
The petition is disposed of in above terms.
JUDGE
wasnik
