1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2447 OF 2010 Shri Om Namah Pratishthan, Latur, Registered Office at Latur, Through its authorized representative (Administrative Officer), Shri Mahendra s/o Ramdular Pal, Age 32 years, Occu.Service, At Post : Tadmugli, Taluka Nilanga, District Latur ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. National Council for Teacher Education, Head Office : Wing-II, Hans Bhavan, I, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110 002, Through its under Secretary 2. Western Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, Manas Bhavan, Shamla Hills, Bhopal, Through Regional Director 3. Maharashtra State Council for Education and Research Training, Pune, through Directorate of Higher Education, Pune 4. The State of Maharashtra Department of Education (Copy to be served on Government Pleader in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, at Aurangabad) ..RESPONDENTS Mr.S.B.Yawalkar, Advocate for petitioner Mr.S.S.Bora, Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 Mr.K.J.Ghute Patil, Assistant Govt.Pleader for respondents 3 and 4 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 3rd August 2010 2 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 18.1.2010 passed by the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (appellate authority) rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay and thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. It appears that the appeal, which was filed by the petitioner was late by six months and ten days. The petitioner had pleaded before the appellate authority that the appeal could not be filed within time as the impugned order was misplaced by the petitioner and it was with great difficulty that the impugned order was located and thereafter the appeal came to be filed. 3. We have heard Mr.Yawalkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S.S.Bora, learned Counsel on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.K.J.Ghute Patil, learned Assistant Govt.Pleader on behalf of respondents 3 and 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the petitioner had offered a reasonable explanation and, therefore, the application seeking condonation 3 of delay ought to have been allowed. Mr.Bora, learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 contends that the reason advanced by the petitioner for condonation of delay is a figment of the imagination of the petitioner and, therefore, the appeal has been rightly rejected. 4. It is true that the explanation to be offered by a party seeking condonation of delay has to be reasonable and the party seeking condonation of delay has to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay. In the present matter, the delay is enormous inasmuch as the appeal filed by the petitioner was beyond the period of limitation by six months and ten days. However, there is nothing on record to indicate that the explanation offered by the petitioner was a false explanation. If indeed the impugned order had been misplaced by the petitioner, the petitioner obviously could not have filed the appeal within time. In that light of the matter, therefore, according to us the petitioner has satisfactorily explained the delay in filing the appeal and the delay deserves to be condoned. 5. We accordingly allow this petition, quash and set aside the impugned order and direct the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits, as the delay has been condoned by us. Mr.Yawalkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that by way 4 of costs, the petitioner would deposit an amount of Rs.5,000/- with the High Court Bar Association’s Library at Aurangabad. We accept the aforesaid gesture, which is indeed a generous gesture and allow this petition by making Rule absolute with no order as to costs, accepting the statement made by learned Counsel for the petitioner that an amount of Rs.5,000/- would be deposited by the petitioner with the High Court Bar Association’s Library at Aurangabad. ( N.D.DESHPANDE ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/2447.10wp)