1 W.P.No.5904/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.5904 OF 2011. Narsinha S/o Gaibi Gawade, Age 32 years, Occ.Service (At present Nil,) R/o Deulgaonraja, Tq. Deulgaonraja, Dist.Buldhana. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Jalna. 2. Mahesh Shikshan Sanstha, Temburni, Tq.Jafrabad, Dist.Jalna, through its Secretary. 3. Seth Eknath Bhagwandas Kabra, Secondary School Temburni, Tq.Jafrabad, Dist.Jalna, through its Head Master. ... Respondents. ... Mr.A.B.Tele, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.P.Phatke, Addl. Govt. Pleader for the Respondent No.1. Mr.D.R.Irale Patil, advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2 W.P.No.5904/11 ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 22.08.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The petitioner had filed an appeal before the School Tribunal, against his oral termination. There was a delay in filing appeal. As such the present petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby,the present petition is filed. 4. Mr. Tele, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal while rejecting the application for condonation of delay, has not considered the grounds stated in 3 W.P.No.5904/11 the application but has gone on the merits of the matter. The learned counsel submits that after he was not allowed to sign the Muster Roll, the petitioner had made complaint to the Education Officer and thereafter sought some documents under Right to Information Act. The documents were supplied in May 2010, that too incomplete and thereafter, the appeal was filed. According to the learned counsel, there was no intentional delay on the part of the petitioner. This aspect has not been considered. 5. Mr.Irale Patil, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the Tribunal has properly considered all the aspects of the matter and thereafter has rightly rejected the application for condonation of delay. According to Mr.Irale Patil, learned counsel, sufficient cause can not be construed so liberally that the said expression itself will lose its efficacy. The petitioner has not explained the delay and as such the delay can not be condoned. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of "Balwant Singh (Dead) Vs. Jagdish 4 W.P.No.5904/11 Singh and others" reported in 2010(6) ALL MR 480 and the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in case of "Kamalbai Narasaiyya Shrimal and another Vs. Ganpat Vithalrao Gavare" reported in 2007 (1) Bom. C.R. 51. 6. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the judgment. The Tribunal has considered some of the merits which in application for condonation of delay are not required to be considered. The grounds agitated in the application for condonation of delay are only required to be considered. The petitioner has stated that after the said oral termination, the petitioner had filed complaint to the Education Officer, which was not considered. Thereafter, had moved application under Right to Information Act. The documents were not given for quite long time. They were given in May 2010 and thereafter, the appeal was filed in June 2010. The delay of four (4) months was caused. 7. It is a settled law that when technical considerations and cause for substantial justice 5 W.P.No.5904/11 are pitted against each other, the cause for substantial justice shall be sub served. The judgment of Apex Court in a case of "Balwant Singh (Dead) Vs. Jagdish Singh and others" referred supra was on the premise that the proper conduct of the party is to be considered and concept of reasonable time has to be complied. In that case the proceedings were abated for not bringing the L.Rs. on record and no steps were taken for quite long time. Even in the judgment in case of "Kamalbai Narasaiyya Shrimal and another Vs. Ganpat Vithalrao Gavare" referred supra, the learned Single of this Court had held that poverty was taken as a ground and it was not explained that how after six (6) months that ground became non-existent. 8. In the present case, the petitioner has explained the cause for delay. Even the petitioner would not gain anything by causing delay. 9. In light of the above, I am inclined to quash and set aside the impugned order. However, 6 W.P.No.5904/11 the petitioner shall be mulct with the cost. 10. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside and application for condonation of delay is allowed on condition that the petitioner pays cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 within a period of four (4) weeks from today. If the cost is paid and if the appeal complies with all other legal requirements then the appeal shall be registered and heard on merits. 11. It is made clear that I have not opined anything on the merits of the matter. 12. Rule made absolute in above terms. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp590411 7 W.P.No.5904/11