1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 3491 OF 2010 Ashok Rambhau Pawar, Age 27 years, Occu. Nil, R/o At Post Sandas Chincholi, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. .. PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through G.P., High Court, Aurangabad Bench. 2) The Commandant, S.R.P.F. Group No. 3, Jalna. RESPONDENT. ... Shri A.S. Deshpande for Petitioner. Shri S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for respondents. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 20th April, 2010. JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 28th April, 2010. JUDGMENT: (Per S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsels for the 2 parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. 2. The Petitioner vide this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Aurangabad Bench of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Misc. Application No. 295/2009 dated 24/02/2010, thereby dismissing the application for condonation of delay and the judgment and order passed in Misc. Application No. 103/2010 dated 06/04/2010, thereby dismissing the review application. 3. The present respondent had filed O.A. challenging the communication dated 22/01/2008, whereby the petitioner is declared as ineligible from sportsmen category. The Tribunal was of the view that, the petitioner has not made out a sufficient cause for condoning the delay. 4. According to the petitioner, the delay was occasioned due to following reasons. “(i) The applicant had taken up the very cause by approaching 3 Hon’ble High Court, Aurangabad Bench by filing P.I.L. along with Shri Mangal Pande on 19/08/2008, however, that same came to be dismissed as not maintainable, being concerned with service matter. (ii) Thereafter,the applicant went on representing to various authorities and could not approach this Tribunal in time. (iii) The applicant/ petitioner herein had also given representation on 6/11/2008, 02/12/2008, pursuant thereto the Assistant Director of Sports and Youth Services, vide his letter dated 17/12/2008 advised the respondent No. 2 to consult the concerned University regarding the applicants eligibility certificate. According to him, the matter was still under consideration with the authorities. Ultimately he filed Original Application in September, 2009.” 5. Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the Tribunal ought to have taken liberal approach. The petitioner was earlier prosecuting the same cause before the 4 Hon’ble High Court at Aurangbad, but as the same was in nature of Public Interest Litigation, the Writ Petition was dismissed as not maintainable, being concerned with service matter. Thereafter, he had made a representations and the representations were under active consideration with the respondents, as can be seen from the letter dated 17/12/2008. While passing initial order in M.A. No. 295/2009 dated 24/02/2009, the factum of the said letter was not noticed by the Tribunal, as such the petitioner filed review application bearing Misc.Application No. 103/2010 but still the Tribunal did not consider the same. The approach of the Tribunal was hyper technical. The delay was not intentional but was due to the fact that, representations were under active consideration. The learned counsel prayed for setting aside the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal and to register the Original Application filed by him. 6. The learned A.G.P. for the respondents supported the orders passed by the Tribunal and contended that the petitioner has not shown any 5 cause much less sufficient cause for condonation of delay. According to him, law of limitation shall apply with all its rigours, and the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. 7. With the assistance of the learned counsels for the parties, we have gone through the pleadings and documents submitted on record, so also judgment and order passed by the Tribunal. It is manifest from the record that the petitioner was prosecuting his cause one way or other. Initially he had filed Writ Petition before the High Court and same was dismissed as not maintainable. He had given representations and the representations were being considered by the authorities concerned. Even by letter dated 16/12/2008 respondent No. 2 was advised to approach and consult the University regarding eligibility certificate of the applicant. It will be seen that the representations were being attended by the respondents, as such the petitioner would be justified in waiting till he gets response to his representations. The 6 petitioner cannot be faulted for not approaching the Tribunal earlier. In such circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay. 8. It is well said that judiciary is respected not because it can deny justice on technical grounds but it can sub serve the cause of substantial justice. If, the technical considerations and the cause of substantial justice are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice should prevail. The Tribunal ought to have taken justice oriented approach. 9. In view of the afore said premise, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside, the petition is allowed and the rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause ‘b’. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J ] [ P.V. HARDAS, J ] SDM* WP3491.10(J)