Nizamuddin Mugni Siddiki vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 6184 Bom

                                                                      WP/7855/2016
                                            1

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                                              
                              WRIT PETITION NO. 7855 OF 2016




                                                      
     Nizamuddin Mugni Siddiqi,
     Age 48 years, Occ. Service
     R/o Sillegaon, Tq. Gangapur,
     District Aurangabad.                             ..Petitioner




                                                     
     Versus

     1. State of Maharashtra
     Through Secretary,




                                          
     Education Department.
                             
     2. The Additional Commissioner,
     Divisional Commissioner Office,
     Aurangabad.
                            
     3. The Chief Executive Officer,
     Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.                      ..Respondents

                                         ...
      

             Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Shaikh Mazhar A. Jahagirdar
                    AGP for Respondents 1 & 2 : Shri S.B.Joshi
                   Advocate for Respondent 3 : Shri N.H.Yadav
   



                                         ...

                              CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

Dated: October 19, 2016

...

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.

2. Rule.

3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the

WP/7855/2016

petition is taken up for final disposal.

4. While issuing notice on 26.7.2016, I had observed as under:-

"1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated

23/09/2015 passed by respondent No.2 by which his appeal u/s 13 and 14 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeals) Rules, 1964 has not been

entertained. By the said order, the petitioner's application for condonation of delay has been rejected on the ground

that there is a delay of 6 months.

2. I find that Rule 16 of the said Rules lays down the limitation of 3 months and the proviso to Rule 16 enables the Appellate Authority to entertain the appeal even

beyond the expiry of the limitation period if the Authority

is satisfied that there are sufficient reasons.

3. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on

05/08/2016. Learned AGP waives service for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Hamdast granted for serving respondent No.3."

5. Learned AGP and the learned Advocate appearing for

respondent No.3 have opposed this petition. Contention is that

the delay of six months is inordinate and is not properly explained.

Therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned order refusing

WP/7855/2016

to condone the delay.

6. Having considered the submissions of the learned Advocates

for the respective sides, I am of the view that respondent No.2 has

followed a pedantic approach, in the light of the ratio laid down

by the Honourable Supreme Court in the matter of Collector, Land

Acquisition Anantnag and another Vs. Mst. Katiji and others [(1987)

2 SCC 107]. I do not find that the delay of six months can be said

to be inordinate or deliberate. The petitioner gains no advantage

by delaying his own matter. Laches have not been attributed to the

conduct of the petitioner.

7. In the light of the above, this petition is allowed. The

impugned order dated 23.9.2015 is quashed and set aside and the

delay of six months is condoned by imposing costs of Rs.500/-,

which the petitioner shall deposit with the Advocates Bar

Association of Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad within two

weeks from today. Application for condonation of delay stands

allowed and respondent No.2 shall, therefore, register the appeal

filed by the petitioner.

8. Learned Advocates for the respective sides submits that they

would appear before respondent No.2 on 18.11.2016 at 3.00 pm.

WP/7855/2016

Respondent No.2, therefore, need not issue formal notices in this

matter.

9. Rule is made absolute in above terms.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) ...

akl/d