1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 237 OF 2008 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL(ST) NO. 7051 of 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6479 of 2007 The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Applicants v/s. Mangala Pandu Monde ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 239 of 2008 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL(ST) NO. 7063 of 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6467 of 2007 The State of Maharashtra & ors. ..Applicants v/s. Manglabai Kalu Vattar ..Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 240 of 2008 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL(ST) NO.7070/2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6466 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Applicants v/s. Sitabao Deoram Monde ...Respondents 2 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.349 of 2008 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL(ST) NO. 7076 of 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6455 of 2007 The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Applicants v/s. Sumanbai Ashok Monde ...Respondents Shri A.P.Vanarase, AGP for the applicants. CORAM:- SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. DATED:- July 24, 2009. P.C. In all the Appeals, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants by relying upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of the State of Maharashtra & anr. v/s. Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav in LPA 14 of 2008 decided on 31st July, 2008 submits that the Learned Single Judge has not applied the principles expounded therein. 2. We are unable to approve this submission, as Learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition primarily on the ground of delay and latches. In Paragraph-6 of the Writ Petition, only reason given for condonation of delay or 3 for ignoring the defect of latches reads as under:- “ The Petitioner states that the impugned order is passed on 10/1/2001. Thereafter, the Petitioner Department approached the Law and Judiciary Department for getting sanction to challenge the order dated 10/1/2001 and therefore the sanction is received on 30th November, 2006 and immediately thereafter the present Petition is filed before this Hon’ble Court, therefore, there is no delay and latches in filing the Writ Petition.” 3. The above averments hardly constitute reasonable cause much less a sufficient reason for ignoring the defect of delay and latches. We agree with the findings of the Learned Single Judge and find no merits in the present proceedings. As a matter of fact, there is delay in filing of the present Appeals as well. The explanation offered is a routine procedural delay which does not commend to us. In any case, for the reasons already recorded, we find no ground to condone the delay in filing of the Appeals. Even on merits the view taken by the Learned Single Judge needs no interference. Hence, dismissed. 4. As a result of this order nothing survives for consideration in the Appeals. The same be treated as disposed of accordingly. CHIEF JUSTICE A.M.KHANWILKAR, J