1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3774 OF 2009 Shamkunwar Rameshlal Jaiswal. ..PETITIONER V E R S U S State of Maharashtra and others. ..RESPONDENTS Shri P. R. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner Shri S. D. Kaldate, AGP for the Resp. State. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, J : DATE :23rd JUNE, 2009. PER COURT :- 1. This petition arises out of interlocutory order passed by the respondent No.2 dated 10.02.2009 thereby rejecting an application filed by the present petitioner for stay. 2. License granted in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled by the order passed by respondent No.3. Being aggrieved thereby the petitioner has preferred an appeal before respondent no.2. In the said appeal, an application for stay to the order passed by the Collector was made, which is rejected. 3. Since the present petition arises out of interlocutory order, it would be in the interest of justice, the respondent no.2 be directed to 2 decide appeal preferred by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible in any case within a period of four weeks. It is informed that proceedings before the respondent No.2 are adjourned to 25.06.2009. In that view of the matter, the respondent No.2 would proceed to hear the appeal on the same day and dispose of the same within the period of four weeks. 4. Authenticated copy be supplied to the learned A.G.P. ( B. R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ..... aaa/wp3774.09 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.7355 OF 2008. 1. Shivaji s/o Dattarao Adkine age 26 yrs, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Dongarkada, Tq. Kalamnuri, Tq. & Dist. Hingoli. 2. Tanaji s/o Dattarao Adkine, age 23 yrs, Occ. Agriculture, R.o Yehelgaon (T), Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli. ..PETITIONERS V E R S U S 1. Balaji s/o Narayan Adkine age 29 yrs, Occ. Agriculture, r/o Dongarkada, Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli. Now R/o Savangi (BK) Tq. & Dist. Nanded. 2. Jijabai w/o Narayan Adkine, age 50 yrs, Occ. Agriculture, R/o as above. ..RESPONDENTS Shri P. S. Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri U. S. Malte, Advocate for the respondent 1 and 2. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, J : DATE :22nd JUNE, 2009. 4 JUDGMENT :- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard by consent. 3. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 13th August, 2008 by which the application for condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration of the suit came to be dismissed. The petitioners also filed an application for restoration of the suit and setting aside the order dated 29.09.2007. 4. It appears from the record that since the petitioners were not feeling well, the suit was kept on September 2007. The said suit came to be dismissed. There after an application came to be filed for restoration of the suit. The application for condonation of delay was also filed , same is rejected. 5. Shri P. S. Agrawal, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned trial court has grossly erred in refusing to condone the delay. He submits that the learned trial Court has taken technical approach. 6. Shri U. S. Male, the learned counsel for the respondents on the contrary submits that the learned court has rightly rejected the application. He submit that no interference is warranted. 7. From the perusal of the application for condonation of 5 delay, the grounds taken by the petitioner that they were ill and were taking treatment. The medical certificates also placed on record by the petitioners. From the record, it further reveals that by not condoning the delay of 15 days the petitioners will be at great loss. The petitioner on technical ground, In the interest of justice to settle their dispute on merits. So far as respondents, the same can be compensated by imposing costs. 8. In the result, I am inclined to allow the petition. Rule is thus made absolute in term of prayer clause ‘C’ however the same shall be subject to deposit of costs quantified at Rs.5,000/- by the petitioner in the trial Court within a period of four weeks from today. On petitioners’ deposit such costs, the respondents would be entitled to withdraw the same. Needless to say, on failure to deposit the costs as aforesaid, the petition shall stand automatically dismissed. ( B. R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ..... aaa/wp7355.08