Bombay High Court
Kisan Kranti Shikshan Sanstha ... vs Vishnu Tukaram Mundhe And Others on 9 June, 2023
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, S. G. Chapalgaonkar
939.ca.3049.23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3049 OF 2023
IN
REVIEW APPLICATION (ST) NO.5731 OF 2023
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.663 OF 2017
1. Kisan Kranti Shikshan Sanstha,
Bhagwati Nagar, Near Bus Stand,
Gangakhed, Tq. Gangakhed, District Parbhani
Through its Secretary,
Shri Subhash S/o Madhavrao Deshmukh,
Age: 58 years, Occu.: Agriculture/ Secretary,
R/o: Bhagwati Nagar, Near Bus Stand,
Gangakhed, Tq. Gangakhed, District Parbhani
2. Parampujya Purshotam Maharaj Matimand Vidhyalaya,
Gangakhed, Tq. Gangakhed, District Parbhani
Through its Head Master,
Kishan S/o Madhavrao Deshmukh
Age: 57 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o: Bhagwati Nagar, Near Bus Stand,
Gangakhed, Tq. Gangakhed, District Parbhani ... APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1. Shri Vishnu S/o Tukaram Mundhe,
Age: 48 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o: Bhandari Colony, Gangakhed,
Tq. Gangakhed, District Parbhani
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Social Welfare Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai -32.
3. The Commissioner,
Handicapped Welfare, Maharashtra State,
3, Church Road, Pune-1
4. The Social Welfare Officer,
Block-A, Zilla Parishad, Parbhani. ... RESPONDENTS
...
1/5
::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 14/06/2023 00:26:05 :::
939.ca.3049.23.odt
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Eknath G. Irale
AGP for Respondents: Mr. A.S. Shinde
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.
DATE : 09.06.2023
PER COURT :
By way of this application, the original respondent Nos.4 and 5
from the writ petition who represent the Management and the School being
run by it are seeking condonation of delay in filing the review application in
respect of the judgment and order dated 23.08.2018 in WP No.663/2017.
2. We have heard the learned advocate Mr. Irale for the applicants.
He submits that without there being any oblique intention, the applicants
could not cause appearance in the writ petition and it was decided ex parte.
He would submit that without there being any concrete proof regarding the
rate of salary being paid to the respondent No.1 - original petitioner, this
Court passed the order by making observation accepting the statement being
made by him as a gospel truth. He would further submit that there is a
serious dispute as regards the rate at which the salary was being paid and it
would be necessary for this Court to embark upon the inquiry and reach
some acceptable figure as per the record available with the applicants. A
fair opportunity deserves to be extended to them to contest the writ petition
on merits, which is possible only if the delay is condoned.
3. The learned advocate further submits that every attempt has
been made to explain the delay in the application. There was intervening
939.ca.3049.23.odt
pandemic during which period by virtue of the order passed by the Supreme
Court, the delay for the period of pandemic was liable to be condoned. It is
only after the respondent No.1 preferred the Contempt Petition
No.557/2019 and the petitioners were served with a notice that prompt
action was taken to approach this Court with this application seeking
condonation of delay. The delay was neither intentional nor deliberate. In
the matter of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji
and Ors.; (1987) 2 S.C.C. 107, the Supreme Court has laid down the
parameters on the basis of which the delay can be condoned. Irreparable
loss and gross injustice would perpetuate if the petitioners are not extended
opportunity to seek review after condonation of delay.
4. We have carefully perused the record. At the outset, it is
necessary to note that it would not lie in the mouth of the petitioners to
demonstrate that they were oblivious of the proceedings that were
happening in the writ petition and even the passing of the order sought to
be reviewed. Ex facie, the applicant No.2 had caused appearance in the Writ
Petition through an advocate, as can be seen from the order under review. It
is not that the order under review was passed ex parte. Rather, this Court in
paragraph No.6 of the order under review has expressly demonstrated the
dilatory conduct of these applicants. It was specifically observed that both
these applicants, the person who represent the Management and the person
who is the Headmaster are real brothers and still they were not ably
assisting the court in deciding the matter on its own merits. We need not
939.ca.3049.23.odt
reproduce the observation in paragraph No.6 and whatever we have noted
would suffice.
5. Apart from the aforementioned conduct of the applicants it is
also pertinent to note that they are not fair enough in even calculating the
delay inasmuch as in the prayer clause they have left the place blank,
conveniently omitting to calculate the delay even when they have been
seeking a discretionary relief having suffered a drastic order.
6. Be that as it may, admittedly, the order under review was passed
on 23.08.2018 in presence of the learned advocate representing the
applicant No.2. The period of limitation would start from the date of the
passing of the order. This application for condonation of delay has been
filed on 28.02.2023. Consequently the delay calculated by the office of
1612 days is correct. When the matter was first listed before the this Court
on 10.03.2023, a dispute was raised on behalf of the applicants regarding
even the quantum of the delay and a statement was made that the delay was
merely of 875 days.
7. True it is that the principles which govern the requests for
condonation of delay have been settled in catena of judgments viz. Collector,
Land Acquisition, Anantnag (supra) and in G. Ramegowda Major and Ors.
Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore ; (1988) 2 Supreme Court
Cases 142. Bearing in mind the parameters to be considered while
appreciating the request for condonation of delay, the very conduct of the
applicants becomes relevant. They represent the Management and the
939.ca.3049.23.odt
School pitted against the Class-IV employee. Though one of them caused
appearance in the writ petition the factual aspects were not controverted by
filing any affidavit-in-reply. As is observed above, their conduct was noted
by this Court also in paragraph No.6 of the order under review. Even
admittedly, the applicants have resorted to filing of this review with an
application for condonation of delay after they were served with a notice in
the contempt proceeding. All these circumstances clearly indicate mala
fides on their part in seeking a review by further seeking condonation of
enormous delay of 1612 days. For all these reasons, we are not inclined to
condone the delay.
8. The application is rejected.
(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
habeeb
