1 W.P.No.193.11 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 193 OF 2011 Shravan Kumar Rameshwar Dubey ... Petitioner v/s The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... Respondents Mr.Noel Pinto i/by M/s.M.P.Vashi & Associates for the petitioner. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar, A.G.P. For Resp. No.1. Mr.S.K.Dubey for respondent Nos.3, 4 & 5. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 21ST JANUARY, 2011 P.C.: 1. The petition has been preferred against the order passed by the School Tribunal dismissing the application for condoning the delay in filing an appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Condition of Service) Regulations Act, 1977 (in short, the M.E.P.S. Act). According to the petitioner, he was illegally terminated from service in June, 2008. He therefore addressed a notice 2 W.P.No.193.11 through his advocate to respondent Nos.3 and 5 seeking reinstatement in service. This notice was sent on 18.9.2008. It appears that another notice was issued by the petitioner to the Education Officer on 28.7.2008. However, as the petitioner’s grievance was not redressed either by respondent Nos.3 and 5 or by the Education Officer, respondent No.2 herein, the petitioner was advised to approach the Human Rights Commission. The petitioner was informed on 3.12.2009 that such an application was not maintainable before the Commission and it was dismissed. The petitioner has pleaded that he was under medical treatment and advised bed rest due to which he did not approach the School Tribunal expeditiously. 2. The application before the School Tribunal was filed on 25.2.2010. 3. The Tribunal has dismissed the application by concluding that sufficient cause was not shown by the petitioner for approaching the Court late. As regards the certificate issued by the doctor, as advised, from 1.8.2009 to 25.2.2010, the Tribunal has stated that the petitioner was unable to explain the delay from 26.2.2010 to 30.3.2010, i.e. the date on which he actually filed the application for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal. 3 W.P.No.193.11 4. In my opinion, the Tribunal has taken a hyper technical view for dismissing the application. The petitioner has shown sufficient cause for not approaching the Court within the prescribed time limit. In fact, the petitioner has not gained in any manner whatsoever by not approaching the Court within the prescribed time limit. In the case of Amrutwahiin Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. v/s Dada Abdul Karim Shaikh & ors., reported in 2006 (2) A.I.R. Bom.R. 133, a learned Single Judge of this Court at Aurangabad (Hardas, J.) has held that the term “sufficient cause” must be liberally construed so as to advance the cause of justice. The learned Judge has relied on the observations of the Supreme Court in the cases of Ram Nath Sao alas Ram Sahu v/s Gobardhan Sao, reported in 2002 (3) SCC 195 and in the case of N.Balakrishnan v/s M.Krishnamurthy, reported in 1998 (7) SCC 123. I am in respectful agreement with the observations of Hardas, J. 5. It is well settled that the delay of every minute, every hour or indeed every day need not be explained, once the applicant shows that he had sufficient and good reason for not approaching the Tribunal within time. 6. The petitioner was unfortunately prosecuting a wrong 4 W.P.No.193.11 remedy for redressal of his grievance. In my opinion, the Tribunal has erred in not condoning the delay although it is one and half years. The Tribunal has unfortunately got bogged down in the mire of technicalities of law rather than advancing the cause of justice. 7. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. ..... 5 W.P.No.193.11