:1: :1: :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 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3534 OF 2008 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3534 OF 2008 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3534 OF 2008 Director General of Police, Maharashtra State, Mumbai and ors. .. Petitioners. Vs. Shri Dilip Pandurang Kamat, under trial prisoner, Yerwada Central Jail, Pune. .. Respondent. Mr. Nitin Deshpande, AGP, for the petitioners. Mr.Dilip Kamat, respondent present in person. CORAM : S.B.MHASE & CORAM : S.B.MHASE & CORAM : S.B.MHASE & D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. DATE : 15.01.2009. DATE : 15.01.2009. DATE : 15.01.2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Mentioned, not on Board. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Rule has already been granted on 5.6.2008. However, by consent of the parties, Rule is heard immediately. 4. The respondent has filed an Original Application No.572 of 2007 challenging the order passed by the petitioners invoking the powers under clause (b) of the second proviso of clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution, as a result of which the services of the respondent were terminated by the :2: :2: :2: petitioners without holding any departmental enquiry. The said order was passed by the petitioners on 21.4.2006 while the respondent was in Yeroda prison. It was served on the respondent on 22.4.2006 and thereafter the respondent had filed the O.A referred to above on 3.10.2007. In the O.A a statement was made that the O.A is within limitation and, therefore, it was registered and admitted by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT). The petitioners, apart from contesting the matter on merits, also raised an objection in respect of the limitation. The MAT has also considered the point of limitation in para 31, of the judgment and thereafter set aside the order allowing the O.A. The said order passed by the MAT in the said O.A is under challenge before this Court. While granting Rule in this petition filed by the petitioners- State on 5.6.2008, this court had granted an ad-interim relief in favour of the petitioners and thereby stayed the order passed by the MAT. Since it was an ad-interim relief, and rule on interim relief was issued. The matter was made returnable today. However, the matter was not shown on the board since the practice of this court is to take order matters on Friday. As Rule was made returnable today the respondent was produced before this court by the prison authority :3: :3: :3: since the respondent is in jail in a well-known Telgi scam case. 5. We have heard the respondent in this matter in detail. We have also pointed out the order dated 5.6.2008 to the respondent and appraised him that without filing a delay condonation application the point of limitation has been considered by the MAT and therefore this court has granted stay. After having gone through the order dated 5.6.2008 and after having considered the provisions of section 21 of the Maharahtra Administrative Tribunals Act, the respondent realised that he should have filed an application for condonation of delay before the MAT. The respondent states that such an application could not be filed because he was in jail and Advocate, who was looking after his matter, has failed in filing the said application. However, the respondent submitted before this Court that he has a valid ground for condonation of delay and he desires to file a condonation application before the MAT. He also submitted before this Court that the order which has been passed by the MAT in O.A may be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the MAT with directions that the respondent may be allowed to file a delay condonation application before the MAT which :4: :4: :4: can be disposed of on merits after hearing the respondent. In view of the above referred concession given by the respondent, we asked the learned counsel for the petitioners whether he has any objection to this, and the learned counsel was fair enough to state that he has no objection for this course of action. Therefore, we pass the following order. 6. The order passed by the MAT on 11.2.2008 in O.A No.572 of 2007 is hereby set aside in view of the concession given by the respondent and we make it clear that we have not considered the said order on merits. The matter is remitted back to the MAT with liberty to the respondent to file a delay condonation application within a period of four weeks from today to the MAT. If such an application is filed by the respondent before the MAT the said application shall be considered, admitted and notices of the said application should be issued to the State Government, viz the petitioners, and thereafter, the MAT shall decide the delay condonation application on its own merits. All this exercise in respect of the delay condonation application shall be considered within a period of three months from the date of the filing of the application. If the MAT finds that there are valid reasons for condonation of delay application, :5: :5: :5: MAT to condone the delay and after condoning the delay, the MAT shall proceed to hear the O.A and shall dispose of the O.A within a period of three months from the date of disposal of the delay condonation application. With these directions the writ petition is disposed of. Rule disposed of accordingly. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.)