1 wp4639-10.sxw pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4639 OF 2010 Jotiba Vijay Niwale .. Petitioner v/s. The State of Maharashtra & Another ..Respondent Mr.Uday Warunjikar for the Petitioner. Mrs. M.P.Thakur, AGP for the Respondent CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED : 19th November , 2010 P.C. : 1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner impugns the order dated 17/12/2009 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, thereby rejecting the prayer for condonation of delay caused in filing O.A. under stamp No.925 of 2009. 2. The petitioner came to be appointed as a police constable on 1.2.1999, after due selection and on 15.3.1999 he was sent for training for a period of four months. On completion of training, he proceeded on leave on 1.7.1999 for one week. On expiry of the leave 2 wp4639-10.sxw period, while he was returning, he met with an accident and sustained fracture to his right leg. He was thereafter admitted in different hospitals from time to time. He was issued a disability certificate on 30.8.2001 certifying that he had sustained 40% disability due to right foot crush injury and on account of this disability, he was not allowed to report as a police constable. On 24.2.2003, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Respondent No.2) submitted a report to the effect that the petitioner was not eligible for completing his training on account of physical disability. The petitioner approached the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission with a representation dated 9.6.2003 and on receipt of the notice from the said Commission, the petitioner was again sent for medical check up on 10.11.2003. It was certified that the petitioner was fit to do sitting work in the office as he had lost right thumb of his leg permanently. Finally, he was issued an order of termination dated 27.1.2004, which he received on 28.1.2004. The said termination order was issued under Rule 11 of the Recruitment Rules, 2000. He approached the Tribunal sometimes in December, 2009 by filing O.A. Stamp No.925 of 2009 along with Misc. Application No.393 of 2009 for condonation of delay. 3 wp4639-10.sxw 3. The petitioner was served with the aforesaid letter and there is no grievance about receipt of the said letter. The petitioner did not take steps to challenge this order till 2009. As per Section 21(1) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 the petitioner was required to file proceeding before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal within one year from the date of the impugned order. The petitioner filed proceedings to challenge the order of termination in 2009. The original application was number as Stamp No.925 of 2009. The petitioner filed Misc. Application No.393 of 2009 praying for condonation of delay in filing the original application. 4. The aforesaid Misc. Application No.393 of 2009 was decided by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, and by its order dated 17.12.2009, said application for condonation of delay was dismissed. Consequently, the main proceeding could not be entertained as it was filed beyond the period of limitation. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.12.2009 by filing this petition. 5. We have heard learned Advocates on both sides. Learned Advocate Mr.Warunjikar, placed reliance on the facts pleaded in the application for condonation of delay, and submitted that the petitioner has explained the delay in filing the petition and that the application 4 wp4639-10.sxw deserves to be granted. On merits, learned Advocate Mr. Warunjikar submitted that the petitioner could have been accommodated as police constable performing table duties and the order of termination of services is harsh and is ultimately required to be reconsidered. Counsel for the State opposed the same. 6. Having gone through the text of the application for condonation of delay and the impugned order dated 17.12.2009, we are not inclined to entertain this petition for the purpose of condonation of delay in filing the main application. The reasons given in the application which are specifically set out in the impugned order cannot be considered as good reasons for the purpose of condonation of delay of five and half years. 7. In the circumstances, we are not impressed by the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate for the petitioner in support of his petition. Hence the petition is dismissed at the stage of admission with no order as to costs. [R.Y.GANOO, J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.]