Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2895 of 2008 The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Petitioner V/s. Trusha Babanrao Patil ...Respondents Mr.S.K.Chinchalikar, AGP for the State CORAM CORAM CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH & : D.K.DESHMUKH & : D.K.DESHMUKH & N.D.DESHPANDE, N.D.DESHPANDE, N.D.DESHPANDE, JJ JJ JJ 5th 5th 5th June, 2008 June, 2008 June, 2008 P.C. . The order impunged in this petition passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal is passed in the year 2002. The Petitioners State Government has given explanation for the latches in para-9 which reads as under: "The Petitioner submit that the impugned order dated 4.10.2002 has been received by the Petitioner on 10.10.2002 through original Petitioner Smt. Patil after receiving the order of the MAT the opinion of the Presenting Officer was called for by the Government vide Government letter dated 11.10.2002 presenting officer submit this opinion vide his letter dated 17.10.2002 that it is not fit case to file appeal in the High Court. By considering the opinion of the presenting Officer department asked the advice of Law and Judiciary 2 Department, Law Department has given advice on 8.11.2002 that it is not fit case to file appeal in the High Court. By considering the presenting officer’s opinion and Law Department’s advice original respondent decides not to file appeal in the High Court and to follow the orders of the Hon’ble MAT. Taking into consideration the orders passed by Hon’ble MAT on 4.10.2002 original respondent i.e. Government have provided Caste scrutiny report to the original petitioner. Original Petitioner submitted her say to the Government. By considering say of the original petitioner, Government again came to the conclusion that original petitioner Smt.Patil should be dismissed from her service. Before passing dismissal order Government again asked Law and Judiciary Department that whether action going to be taken against original petitioner is as per the order passed by the Hon’ble MAT. Law and Judiciary Department changed its earlier opinion and asked the Petitioner i.e. Government to file appeal against the orders passed by Hon’ble MAT on 8.10.2002 vide its letter dated 1.4.2006. As per the fresh opinion given by Law and Judiciary Department, Government asked Presenting Officer that whether it is possible to file review application in Hon’ble MAT vide letter dated 3 19.4.2006. Chief Presenting Officer has given his opinion vide letter dated 27.4.2006 that it is not possible to file review application before Hon’ble MAT, against the orders passed by Hon’ble MAT on 8-10-2002. Therefore, Law and Judiciary Department has granted permission on 6-7-2006 to file appeal in the Hon’ble High Court and after following the due procedure the Petitioner approached this Hon’ble High Court. Thus delay caused in filing this petition is only due to administrative reasons and this may please be considered and Petitioner be hold on merit." 2. Accepting whatever is stated in aforesaid paragraph, permission was granted by the Law and Judiciary Department to file this petition on 6-7-2006 but present petition has been filed on 3-3-2008. There is no explanation why immediately after 6-7-2006 petition was not filed. Looking at the matter there is inordinate delay in approaching the Court. In our opinion, it will not be appropriate to entertain the petition. Petition rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J) (D.K.DESHMUKH,J) (D.K.DESHMUKH,J) (N.D.DESHPANDE,J) (N.D.DESHPANDE,J) (N.D.DESHPANDE,J)