1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.378 of 2006 Shri Ravindra Nathu Kolte, Age 49 yrs., Occ: Tax consultant, R/o.Chalis Bigha, Opp.Deshmukh Hospital, Malkapur, Tq.Malkapur, Dist.Buldhana. ...PETITIONER VERSUS Chairman M.J.Arts and Science College consumer Society LTD., Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr.P.N.Kutti, Adv., for the petitioner. Respondent served, absent. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 1/10/2010 *** COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Mr.P.N.Kutti, learned Counsel, extensively. The grievance is, without any verification, delay condonation application was moved before the learned Judge, Cooperative Court at Jalgaon, and without any opportunity, the same has been entertained, condoning delay of 12 2 years, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 2. The respondent/disputant, inspite of service on two occasions, absent. 3. The principal grievance of Mr.P.N.Kutti, learned Counsel is, the application warranted verification, which is lacking and, hence, it need not have been entertained. He is not satisfied with the affidavit in support tendered by the disputant, executed by Yashwant Amritrao Saidand, as, according to him, it will not meet requirement of an application to condone the delay. 4. The contentions that there was delay of 12 years or, no reasons are assigned in the application, are mis-placed. It is very well demonstrated in the application, staking contention and, also in the affidavit. The delay that was indicated and portrayed was of 6 years and, not of 12 years. The disputant also indicated that the delay in moving the application is not the delay to be computed but, as a safe measure, the application was made. The second ground of objection i.e. want of verification, supported by the orders of Apex Court, reported in AIR 1970 SC 652 (A.K.K.Kambiar V. Union of India) will not be of much avail to 3 the assistance of the writ petitioner. The application for condonation of delay is supported with an affidavit, which is verbatim copy of the contention in the petition. It certainly meets the requirement. The third objection that no hearing was given is again unjust and untrue also. The record also illustrates, the petitioner herein, after filing reply, making challenge to entertainment of the application, was properly heard by the learned Judge. All the submissions advanced today were also equally part of the submissions made before the learned Judge which, thread bare, the learned Judge has dealt with while passing the order. Reference can safely be seen in the order under challenge and, particularly, at paragraph nos.17, 18 and 19. The learned Judge was equipped with the observations of the Apex Court which indicated, "while considering the contention of delay, the Court should adopt liberal approach". Reasons for adopting such liberal approach are given in paragraph no.3 of the judgment reported in AIR 1987 SUPREME COURT 1353 (Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst.Katiji and others). 5. Considering these facts, the challenge in the writ petition is uncalled for. The laxity on the part of the respondent, though writ large, will not mitigate the nature of challenge 4 in the writ petition. Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs. Interim protection, if any, is vacated. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/378-06wp