1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Writ Petition No.2238 of 2003 ( Kasturba Memorial Education Society, Nagpur .vs. State of Mah. And one ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders ======================================= .......... CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : MARCH 26, 2009 Heard Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. By this petition, the petitioner challenges orders dated 31.12.1999 as well as order dated 12.10.2001 passed by respondent no.2 refusing to grant approval to the appointment of Mr. Arvind Dhobale as Assistant Teacher in the school run by the petitioner for the academic session 1999-2000. Respondent no.2 issued order dated 31.12.1999 to the petitioner refusing to grant approval to the appointment of Mr. Dhobale for the academic session 1999- 2000. Thereafter the petitioner made representation dated 17.4.2000 and 1.12.2001. It appears that Mr. Dhobale himself had filed Writ Petition No. 1497 of 2001 challenging refusal of approval. By order dated 27.6.2001 this Court directed Education Officer to consider the case of Mr. 2 Dhobale for approval. Pursuant to the said order, the case of Mr. Dhobale was reconsidered and respondent no.2 passed order dated 12.10.2001 maintaining the earlier order. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition on 21.4.2003. The petition was initially dismissed for non prosecution on 21.1.2004. In the year 2008 an application for restoration along with condonation of delay was filed which was allowed by this Court by order dated 15.1.2009. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although the petitioner is primarily challenging the order dated 31.12.1999, the petitioner had made representations to respondent no.2 on 17.4.2000 and 1.12.2001 and even on 19.4.2002 after the order was passed pursuant to the directions given by this Court. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioner is not guilty of unexplained delay. We are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Joshi. The present writ petition challenging the order dated 31.12.1999 has been filed after three years from the date of the order. Mere fact that the petitioner had made representation against the said order by itself, would not be sufficient to hold that the petitioner has approached this Court within a reasonable time. Insofar as the representation made on 19.4.2002 is concerned, the same was made after the order dated 12.10.2001 was passed by respondent no.2. It is pertinent to note that order dated 12.10.2001 was passed pursuant to directions given in writ 3 petition preferred by Mr. Dhobale. There is absolutely no reason as to why the petitioner did not approach this Court within a reasonable time challenging the order dated 31.12.1999. In our considered opinion there is unexplained delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court. On this count we are not inclined to interfere and hence the petition is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE halwai