1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 4726 of 2011 Mohd. Anwar Hussain Vs. Black Diamond Education Society & others. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Masood Shareef, Adv. for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 22 nd September, 2011. Heard. By the impugned order dated 4.7.2011 the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur, had rejected the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. The petitioner had, by the appeal filed in January, 2010, challenged the order passed by the respondent/ management terminating the services of the petitioner. The petitioner filed the appeal against the suspension/termination order along with an application for condonation of delay. The petitioner stated in the application for condonation of delay that by a letter dated 15.7.2006, the management had suggested that the petitioner should deposit an amount of rupees eight lakhs and odd which were allegedly misappropriated by the petitioner. It is stated in the application that from time to time the petitioner approached the management and sent letters requesting the management to withdraw the suspension and permit the petitioner to join his duty. It is further stated in the 2 application that the petitioner was forced to leave Nagpur from September, 2007 till December, 2008 for medical treatment of his wife at Delhi. After his return, according to the petitioner, he again issued communications to the management for reinstatement. It is stated that in this background the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned. On a perusal of the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay and the reasons stated therein, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner as the delay had not been satisfactorily explained by the petitioner. The Tribunal held, and rightly so, that a literate person like a clerk could not be expected to wait for the decision of the management on the representations for a period of nearly five years. The Tribunal observed that the petitioner had pleaded that he was out of Nagpur from September, 2007 till December, 2008 but there was no explanation as to why the petitioner waited till September, 2007 or after December, 2008 and filed the appeal in the month of February, 2010. The Tribunal observed that there was nothing on record to show that there was exchange of communications between the petitioner and the management for those five years. The statement made by the petitioner in para 6 of the application that even after December, 2008, the petitioner issued communications to the management for reinstatement and hence the delay should be condoned was rightly rejected by the Tribunal as after having waited for three years, the petitioner could not have further afforded to wait for a period of two more years on the pretext that he was seeking a favourable response from the respondent-management. It is a settled principle of law that mere issuance of representations to the authority would not enlarge the time. Since the order passed by the Tribunal is just and proper, 3 the same calls for no interference. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan