Balaji Marotirao Bodke vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 9867 Bom

                                                                                      1                             W.P. 13727.2017 - [J]


                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                                             WRIT PETITION NO. 13727 OF 2017



                      Balaji         Marotirao               Bodke
                      Age : 48 Yrs., Occ. Agril.,
                      R/o : At & Post Dongaon,
                      Tq. Mudkhed, Dist.Nanded.                                                      .... PETITIONER


                                                        VERSUS


                      1.          The State of Maharashtra
                                  Thr. its Secretary,
                                  General Administration
                                  Department, Mantralaya,
                                  Mumbai - 32.


                      2.          The Collector
                                  Office of the District
                                  Collector, Nanded,
                                  Tq. and Dist. Nanded.                                         .... RESPONDENTS
                                                                    ......


                                  Mrs. M.L.Sangeet, Advocate for Petitioner.
                                  Mr. R.V.Dasalkar, A.G.P. for Resp. - State.
                                                                    ......
                                                        CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA &
                                                                               V.L.ACHLIYA, JJ.

DATE OF JUDGMENT : 20th DECEMBER, 2017 ......

2 W.P. 13727.2017 - [J]

ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER - S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.]

. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard

finally by the consent of both sides.

2. Learned A.G.P. waives service of notice.

3. The petitioner has filed Original Application

making grievance of selection process. The Original

Application was delayed by 2 months and 20 days. The

application for condonation of delay is rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner had earlier exhausted other avenues. The

petitioner was not aware about the forum for filing the

application and after he contacted his Advocate, the

application is filed.

5. Learned A.G.P. submits that no reasons are

stated. As such, the order is correct.

6. The delay is of 2 months and 20 days. The

petitioner claims that the cause of action arose on

21/12/2015. As such, the delay would be of more than

two years.

3 W.P. 13727.2017 - [J]

7. The petitioner was not to gain anything by

delay. It is trite that when technical considerations and

cause of substantial justice are pitted against each other,

cause of substantial justice would subserve. Considering

the reasons given by the petitioner, the impugned order is

quashed and set aside. The application for condonation of

delay is allowed. The Tribunal shall decide the proceeding

on its own merit.

8. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No

costs.

[V.L.ACHLIYA, J.] [S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.]

KNP/W.P. 13727.2017 - [J]