1 wp4787-10 agk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4787 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra & Others ..Petitioners. Versus Dr.Madhukar Buvajirao Sonawane ..Respondent. Mr.A.D. Kango, AGP for the petitioner. Mr.V.V. Tayade for the respondent. CORAM : B.H. Marlapalle, & U.D. Salvi, JJ. DATE : 20th October 2010. P.C. : We have heard Mr.Kango, the learned AGP. This petition filed by the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary in the Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Dairy Development is required to be dismissed at the threshold on account of inordinate delay as well as the intervening events so as to implement the impugned order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. 2. The respondent had filed Original Application No.1214 of 2003 and the same came to be allowed by the impugned Judgment and Order dated 10th January 2006. The departmental proceedings initiated against the 2 wp4787-10 respondent under memorandum dated 23rd November 2001 came to be declared as cancelled. More than four years later, this petition has been moved before us under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and the learned AGP has taken us through the averments in paragraph­7 and 8 of the petition memo to explain the inordinate delay caused in filing this petition. We have noted that as per the averments of the petitioners’ themselves, the proposal submitted to challenge the impugned order was approved by the Law & Judiciary Department on 7th August 2006 and this petition has been filed after about four years i.e. on 16th June 2010. The explanation furnished cannot be called even an explanation and it can only be termed as inaction on the part of the officers concerned to move the petition. Having said so, let us examine what has happened in between and if the impugned order has already been implemented, this is a frivolous exercise made by the petitioners in approaching this Court. 3. The respondent – original applicant has filed affidavit in reply and has specifically stated that pursuant to the impugned order, he came to be promoted to the post of Assistant Commissioner, Animal Husbandry, Osmanabad on 11th March 2008 and that promotion came through consequent to his approaching the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application no.589 of 2007. On 31st October 2007, the Tribunal directed the present petitioners to convene a meeting of the special DPC and to place the respondents case before it and the DPC was convened and an 3 wp4787-10 order of promotion came to be passed on 11th March 2008 which was placed before the Tribunal in Original Application No.589 of 2007. On 12th march 2008, the Tribunal disposed off the said Original Application. Thus, the challenge to the impugned order setting aside the enquiry proceedings initiated against the respondent – original application has become stale. 4. We are, therefore, satisfied that on account of the inordinate delay caused in filing this petition as well as the intervening events, this petition must fail at the threshold. The same is hereby rejected summarily. (U.D. Salvi, J.) (B.H. Marlapalle, J.)