FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6196 OF 2009 ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2 Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and by consent of the parties, taken up for hearing. 3 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception tot he order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad dated 9th July,2009 in M.A. No.162 of 2009 with M.A. NO.163 of 2009 in O.A. No.580/2008. For the nature of relief that we propose to grant in the present petition, it is not necessary to advert to the factual matrix of the case. Suffice it to observe that the petitioner filed Original Application in 2008. The said application was however, dismissed for default on 18th February, 2009. The petitioner took out application for restoration of the Original Application being M.A. No.163 of 2009. Since there was delay in filing the restoration application, the petitioner took out another application M.A. No.162 of 2009 for condonation of delay in filing restoration application. The tribunal has rejected the later application on the ground that for the delay of 3 months and 15 days, no sufficient explanation has been offered. 4 After having considered the pleadings and rival submissions, we are inclined to set aside the said order as we find that the principal reason for not taking any steps for restoration was on account of inaction of the Advocate. That position is virtually accepted by the Advocate. It is well established position that the litigant should not suffer for the mistake of the Advocate. In the interest of justice, therefore, the petitioner is not only entitled for the relief of setting aside of the impugned decision but, also for granting the relief as prayed for in M.A. No.162/2009 as well as M.A. No.163/2009. 5 Accordingly, both these applications are allowed and resultantly, the O.A. NO.580 of 2008 shall stand restored to the file to its original position, to be proceeded with, on its own merits, in accordance with law. This indulgence is shown on condition that the petitioner has expressed willingness to pay costs quantified at Rs.10,000/- to the respondent Nos.6 and 7 within four weeks from today. The amount of costs was offered to compensate the said respondents towards legal expenses in espousing the cause before the tribunal in two applications as also the present writ petition. Petition is allowed on the above terms. Rule made absolute accordingly. (S.S. SHINDE, J) (A.M. KHANWILKAR,J) 28.01.2010. PLK/*