1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4114 OF 2010 Mauli Education Trust's, B. Ed. College of Education, Supa, Tq. Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar, Through its President, Dadasaheb Bhausaheb Pathare, Age : 48 Years, Occu. : President, R/o Supa, Tq. Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar, .. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary for Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. Under Secretary, (Appellate Authority) National Council for Teacher Education, Wing - II, Hanas Bhavan, 1, Bhadurshah Marg, New Delhi 110 002. 3. The Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, NCTE, Manas Bhawan, Shyamla Hills, Bhopal. 2 4. The Director of State Council of Education, Research and Training, Sadasiv Peth, Pune. .. .. Respondents Shri A. S. Bayas, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. K. Kadam, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 4. Shri Satyajit Bora, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 29TH JULY, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [Per P. V. HARDAS, J. ] : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed on 02.02.2010 by the Under Secretary of National Council for Teachers Education dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground of appeal being belated appeal. It appears that, there was an delay of four months and three days in filing the said appeal. The explanation tendered by the petitioner was not acceptable by the appellate 3 authority and consequently the appeal came to be dismissed. 3. Since the appeal has been dismissed on a technical point of the appeal being barred by time, we do not consider it necessary to refer to the facts of this matter in detail. Suffice it to state that the petitioner being aggrieved by the order of refusal to grant recognition/approval submitted for starting B. Ed. college, petitioner submitted his appeal before the appellate authority. The petitioner tendered an explanation for delay and that explanation was that on account of erroneous advice of the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner approached the counsel at Aurangabad for drafting a writ petition in this Court. It was only thereafter, the petitioner realized that a remedy of appeal was available. Another reasons given by the petitioner is on account of postal delay. 4. We have heard, learned counsel for parties and according to us, the explanation given by the petitioner is certainly satisfactory. The petitioner has certainly made out a case for condonation of delay. In that light of the matter, we are inclined to allow this writ petition and quash and set aise the impugned order and remand the matter back to the appellate authority for 4 treating the appeal as decided and decide the same on merits. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly makes statement that the petitioner would deposit certain amount with the High Court Bar Association library towards the cost for condonation of delay. The aforesaid genture, according to us is highly generous and certainly deserves to be appreciated. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that, an amount of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five thousands only) would be deposited by the petitioner with the High Court Bar Association library. We accept the aforesaid statement. 6. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the appellate authority for deciding the appeal on merits. 7. Rule is made absolute on the above said terms with no order as to costs. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ P. V. HARDAS, J.] bsb/July 10