IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 324 OF 2010 SHRI ANAND RAYA SHIRODKAR NAIK ... Petitioner Versus SHRI HARI YEHWANT NAIK (SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRS. (A). SMT LILAVATI H. NAIK AND 5 ORS. ... Respondent Mr.P. Vengurlekar, advocate for the petitioner. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 15th December, 2010 P.C: Heard Mr. Vengurlekar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 18/12/2009 passed by the Administrative Tribunal,Panaji in Mundkar Revision application no.12/1997 dismissing the revision application preferred against the order passed by the Additional Collector dismissing the appeal against the judgment and order dated 15/6/1993 passed by the Mamlatdar of Salcete declaring the original respondent Hari Yeshwant Naik (since deceased) as mundkar on the ground that it was time barred. 3. Perusal of the record discloses that according to the petitioner himself, he came to know about the judgment dated 15/6/1993 on 5/8/1994 and he applied for certified copy on 14/10/2004. Perusal of the application seeking condonation of delay discloses that the applicant has not given any details in the application regarding the steps taken by him after he came to know about the judgment dated 15/6/1993. In this factual background, the Additional Collector as well as the Administrative Tribunal have refused to condone the delay in preferring the appeal. 4. No doubt, the term "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay has to be liberally construed, as has been held by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions, but at the same time it is to be noted that expiry of the period of limitation gives certain right to the other side since the impugned order becomes final after the expiry of the period of limitation. Therefore, the delay deserves to be condoned if there is no negligence or inaction on the part of the party seeking condonation of delay. In the present case the application seeking condonation of delay filed by the applicant is cryptic and bereft of the relevant details regarding the steps taken by the petitioner after he came to know about the judgment dated 15/6/1993. 5. In view of this factual position, I do not find any jurisdictional error having been committed by both the tribunals below in refusing to condone the delay. In my considered opinion, this is not a fit case to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, no case is made out for interference with the impugned order. Hence, the petition stand dismissed. A. P. LAVANDE, J. ap/-