1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Civil Application No.157 of 2010 in Misc. Civil Application (Review) St. No.20011/2009 in Writ Petition No. 1648/2009 (D) (Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Amravati .vs. Shankarrao s/o. Rambhau Dabhade and Ors.) _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.P.BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 22, 2011. Heard Dr. Anjan De, Adv. for the applicant, Mr.Bhangde, Adv. for respondent no.1 and Mr.J.B.Kasat, Adv. for respondent no.2. The present application is filed by the applicant for condonation of delay in filing the review application. The reason given for the delay is administrative exigencies. However, the other side has pointed out contradictory stand in the application for condonation of delay, as filed and in the subsequent affidavits. In the application for condonation of delay, it is mentioned that the applicant had obtained certified copy on 28.7.2009 and 2 thereafter, legal opinion regarding further course of action was obtained. Because of vagueness in the affidavit, additional affidavit came to be filed on 23.2.2011, where the facts disclose that the certified copy was obtained by the Counsel for the applicant on 28.7.2009 and the A.P.M.C. received Writ from this Court on 2.9.2009. Thereafter, the A.P.M.C. obtained opinion and resolution was passed on 3.11.2009. A further affidavit, thereafter, has been filed on 8.4.2011, which shows that, initially, the A.P.M.C. sought opinion from its Counsel at Amravati and from its Counsel at Nagpur after 15.9.2009. Meeting was then held on 28.10.2009 and decision was taken by the Committee on 3.11.2009. Thus, receipt of certified copy by its Counsel or then by the applicant/A.P.M.C. is not in dispute. In any case, it is not the case of the applicant that it was not aware regarding receipt of certified copy by its Counsel. Even the last affidavit does not give a specific date and vaguely mentions that opinion from the Advocate at Nagpur was obtained after 15.9.2009. The meeting of A.P.M.C. is then stated to have been convened on 28.10.2009. Therefore, there is no reason as to why the meeting could not have been convened immediately after 15.9.2009. 3 In this situation, though repeated opportunities were given to the applicant, creditworthy story has not come on record. We are, therefore, not in a position to accept the affidavits and the story pressed into service for condonation of delay. Hence, the application is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE jais