IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1475 OF 2008 Ms.Seema Dhanajirao Chavan ..... Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...... Respondents Mr.S.A.Sawant, Advocate, for the Petitioner Ms.S.S.Bhende, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.S.G.Deshmukh, Advocate, for Respondent No.4 & 5. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. DATED : AUGUST 06, 2008. P.C. 1. By filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Kolhapur Region, Kolhapur, below Exh.2 dated 29-01-2008 in Appeal No.6 of 2006, by which the Tribunal has not condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The present petitioner preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which is numbered as Appeal No.6 of 2006. The petitioner has challenged his termination order before the School Tribunal. However, since there was a delay of about 10 months in preferring appeal, the petitioner preferred an application for condonation of delay on the ground that the petitioner-original appellant before the Tribunal was making representations to the respondent- 2 Management from time to time and was under hope that the management will decide representations in her favour and was waiting for decision of the respondent-management on the representations and that is how delay was occurred. 2. The Tribunal however, found that making correspondence to the respondent and other authorities does not mean that the appellant was prevented from approaching the Court within the prescribed period of limitation. The Tribunal has found that it is not a sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The Tribunal accordingly rejected the application for condonation of delay, which order is impugned in this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that sufficient cause was shown for the delay caused in filing the appeal and the Tribunal should have condoned the delay and should have decided the controversy on merits. He further submitted that in view of Government Resolution dated 23-11-2005, the petitioner has good case on merits before the Tribunal. 4. It is required to be noted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal should have taken liberal view of the matter and should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal as the petitioner made representations to the respondent-management and was 3 waiting the decision on such representations. The learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3 as well as the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.4 & 5, have not seriously objected the question about delay being condoned. Considering the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner and considering the facts & circumstances of the case, the petition is allowed and delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned. However, the petitioner is directed to deposit a cost of Rs.1,000/- before the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from today. The respondent-management is permitted to withdraw the said amount unconditionally. The School Tribunal may now proceed with the appeal on its own merits and may dispose of the same within a period of six months from today. It will be open to all the parties to place any other material on record before the Tribunal. Rule is accordingly made absolute in terms of what is stated hereinabove. ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )