Bombay High Court
Dattu S/O Haribhau Atkale vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 23 March, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp209.16.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.209/2016
PETITIONER: Dattu s/o Haribhau Atkale
Aged about 63 years, Occ : nil
R/o Near Veterinary Hospital,
Ward No.17, Dhantoli, Katol,
Distt. Nagpur - 440 010.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENT : 1. State of Maharashtra through its
Secretary, Revenue and Forest, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 440 032.
2. The Collector, Nagpur.
3. Sub Divisional Officer, S.D.O. Officer
(Katol/Narkhed) near Tahsil Office, Katol, Distt.
Nagpur - 440 022.
4. The Tahsildar, Narkhed, Tahsil Office,
Narkhed, Distt. Nagpur.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S.W. Sambre, Advocate for petitioner
Mrs. R.A. Deshpande, AGP for respondents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, AND
V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 23.03.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. the petition is heard
finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
wp209.16.odt
By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of
the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, dated 26.8.2015 dismissing the
application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in seeking the
restoration of the original application that was dismissed for want of
prosecution.
The petitioner had filed an original application bearing
Original Application No.477/2000 after he was dismissed in pursuance of
a departmental enquiry conducted against him. The original application
came up for hearing on 1.8.2007 and since the matter was not prosecuted
either by the petitioner or his Counsel, the same was dismissed for want
of prosecution. The petitioner belatedly filed an application for
restoration of the original application on 18.6.2014. Along with the
application for restoration, an application for condonation of delay in
filing the restoration application was also filed. The Tribunal however by
the impugned order rejected the application for condonation of delay.
The said order is challenged by the petitioner in the instant petition.
Shri Sambre, the learned Counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner met with a serious accident on 5.6.2007 i.e.
a couple of months before the original application was dismissed for want
of prosecution. It is stated that the petitioner could not respond to the
communications of his Counsel as he was treated in the OPD till
wp209.16.odt
12.6.2008. It is submitted that though the petitioner has suffered partial
disability and is not in a position to easily walk and use his limbs freely,
till date, the medical reports were not filed by the petitioner before the
Tribunal. It is stated that unfortunately, the petitioner had filed only the
documents showing that he had been treated at the OPD till 12.6.2008. It
is submitted that in the circumstances of the case, this Court may take a
lenient view in the matter and remand the case of the petitioner to the
Tribunal so that the petitioner could produce additional material before
the Tribunal to point out that there was sufficient cause for belatedly
filing the application for restoration. It is stated that the petitioner had
suffered both physical and mental trauma during these years and
therefore, the petitioner did not make any enquiry in regard to the
pending matter from his Counsel for quite some time. It is submitted that
by taking a sympathetic view in the matter, this Court may remand the
matter to the Tribunal so that the petitioner would produce additional
material before the Tribunal to point out the 'sufficient cause' in
approaching the Tribunal belatedly.
Mrs. Rashi Deshpande, the learned Assistant Government
Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents supported the order of
the Tribunal. It is submitted that the Tribunal cannot be blamed for not
condoning the inordinate delay as the petitioner had produced the
wp209.16.odt
material to show that he was admitted only till July, 2008. It is submitted
that on the basis of the material available on record, the Tribunal has
taken a correct view of the matter.
On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we find that
there is no scope for interference with the impugned order, if we consider
the order in the light of the material placed by the petitioner before the
Tribunal. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out
some material in the form of medical reports and other documents to
show that the petitioner was seriously ill till he filed the application for
restoration and even thereafter. We prima facie find that the statement
made on behalf of the petitioner appears to be correct as the petitioner
had met with a serious accident and the petitioner is said to have been
partially crippled due to the accident. In the peculiar facts of the case,
though we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order
on the basis of the available material, it would be necessary to take a
sympathetic view in the matter and remand the matter to the Tribunal
with liberty to the petitioner to file additional documents in support of his
application for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly
allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is
remanded to the Tribunal with a request to the Tribunal to re-decide the
wp209.16.odt
application for condonation of delay after permitting the petitioner to file
additional documents in support of the application for condonation of
delay.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the
additional documents would be tendered before the Tribunal within a
period of six weeks. We accept the statement. We request the Tribunal to
decide the application at the earliest as the petitioner is still under
treatment.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
