:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 431 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 431 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 431 OF 2008 Siddheshwar Chatterjee ..Petitioner versus Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. B. Rajan for the Petitioner. Mr. A. D. Kango i/b. Mrs. P. P. Bhosale for the Respondents. CORAM : S.B. MHASE & CORAM : S.B. MHASE & CORAM : S.B. MHASE & A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. DATE : 17TH JUNE, 2008. DATE : 17TH JUNE, 2008. DATE : 17TH JUNE, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . The petitioner was an Income Tax officer. He was removed from the services after conducting an enquiry by an Order dated 14.2.1994. The said order is challenged by filing O.A. before the C.A.T. coupled with an application for condonation of delay on 26.7.2005. There is a delay of 11 years and more. The ground for condonation of delay agitated by the petitioner was that he was suffering from depression, mental illness etc. and therefore was not in a position to prosecute the legal remedies. Each and every certificate submitted by the :2: petitioner has been scrutinized by the C.A.T. and have been rejected by a reasoned order. These are factual findings recorded by the C.A.T. No perversity and/or illegality in those findings were pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The arguments proceeded on the ground that one opportunity may be given to the petitioner sympathetically. C.A.T. has exercised its discretion in the matter and has not granted discretion in favour of the petitioner. We do not find any sound reasons to interfere in the order in exercise of Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition is therefore rejected. (A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J.) (A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J.) (A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J.) (S. B. MHASE, J.) (S. B. MHASE, J.) (S. B. MHASE, J.)