1 wp3774.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3774 OF 2011 Mohindersing Kanhayyasing Sodhi, Age: 61 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Sahakar Nagar, Near Pipeline Road, Savedi, Ahmednagar. ...PETITIONER VERSUS Shri. Dattatraya Trimbak Bekarase, Age: 42 years, Occ: Labourer, R/o Kharekarjune, Tq. and Dist. Ahmednagar and another. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. Niteen V.Gaware, Advocate h/f Mr. Sachin S. Kotkar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. P.V. Barde, Advocate for respondent No.1. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 24TH NOVEMBER, 2011 PER COURT : . Heard learned Counsel for petitioner. 2. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner was not aware about the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, 2 wp3774.11 Ahmednagar in Reference (IDA) No. 77 of 1989. The petitioner came to know about the said award on 17-02-2008 and thereafter, writ petition was preferred on the ground that, he did not get opportunity to contest the execution petition. Learned Counsel invited my attention to Exhibit-K i.e. order dated 22-06-2009 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2312 of 2009. Learned Counsel further submits that, the delay in filing this writ petition is explained in para-14 of the writ petition. Therefore, according to learned Counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition deserves to be entertained. 3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 would submit that, the petitioner was aware about such award and the stand taken by the petitioner for filing belated writ petition is not innocent and writ petition is filed belated, therefore, this Court may not entertain this writ petition. 3 wp3774.11 4. I have given due consideration to the rival submissions. It is not in dispute that, the award which is impugned in this petition is passed on 31-07-1997 by the Labour Court, Ahmednagar in Reference (IDA) No. 77 of 1989. It is also not in dispute that, the present petitioner was very much party to the said proceedings and even written statement was filed by him. The petitioner is a Contractor by profession. Filing of such writ petition after lapse of a period of 14 years when the petitioner himself was a party to the proceedings in Reference (IDA) No. 77 of 1989 and when he has filed written statement in the said proceedings, filing of belated such writ petition is a abuse of process of law and judicial process, this is a fit case in which respondent No.1 is entitled to the costs of Rs.25,000/-. The explanation which is offered in para-14 of the petition appears to be afterthought and which is far away from truth. It does lie in the mouth of the petitioner that he is unaware about the outcome of the award which was passed in 1997. 4 wp3774.11 5. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition stands rejected with costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand only), to be deposited by the petitioner within three months from today before this Court. On depositing such amount, respondent No.1 will be entitled to withdraw the same. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/NOV11