1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4995/2009 MADHAV SAKHARAM KAVAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr.C.A.Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Learned AGP for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 Mr.A.P.Tathod, Advocate for Respondent NO.4 Mr. R.L.Khapre, Advocate, for Respondent NO.5. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 15, 2010. Heard. 2. Advocate Joshi makes a grievance that his prayer for condonation of delay has been rejected without looking the facts of the matter. He points out that because of his grievance against Respondent No.5, a Writ Petition No. 3164/2006 was filed and that petition was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to approach Respondent No.1 on 10.12.2007. Thereafter appeal was filed on 9.1.2008 vide Appeal NO. 4/2008 and as Respondent No.1 denied to entertain it, the petitioner was required to approach the Hon'ble Minister. He points out that after receipt of that communication, within reasonable time the proceedings were filed. According to him, the delay, therefore, needed to be condoned. 3. Advocate Khapre for Respondent No.5 on the other hand argues that the delay has not been rightly 2 condoned and the case pleaded by present respondent no.5 before the Hon'ble Minister has been accepted. According to him, in each and every cases it is not necessary to refer to the facts while exercising such jurisdiction. 4. Learned AGP as also Advocate Tathod supports the impugned order. 5. The impugned order refused to condone the delay after noticing that order dated 7.12.2007 needed to be challenged within 30 days as per the provisions of Section 52-B(2) of Mahaashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963. The fact that the application for condoning the delay was under consideration, has been lost sight of by the Hon'ble Minister. To conclude whether there was just and sufficient reason for not approaching the Court within time, reference to earlier writ petition, liberty granted therein, filing of appeal No. 4/2008 and refusal of Respondent No.2 to entertain it, were all relevant factors. All these factors are not even mentioned in the impugned order. 6. In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 21.8.2009 is hereby quashed and set aside. The proceedings are restored back to the file of Respondent No.1 for taking fresh decision in accordance with law as early as possible and in any case on or before 30th April, 2010. 7. All the contentions of respective parties are kept open before that authority. Parties to appear before 3 Respondent No.1 on 5th March, 2010 and to abide by his further instructions in the matter. 8. Writ Petition disposed of. JUDGE Rvjalit.