1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.2318 OF 2008 The Chairman, Muslim Education Committee, Sangli & Anr. ...Petitioners. Vs. Shaikh Barkatgullah Hussein & Ors. ...Respondents. .... Mr. A.M. Kulkarni for the Petitioners. Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar for Respondent No.1. Mr. S. D. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent No.2. Mr. R.M. Momin for Respondent No.3. ..... CORAM :DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. April 28, 2008. P.C.: Rule, by consent of Counsel returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents waive service. By consent of Counsel and at their request taken up for hearing and final disposal. This Writ Petition arises out of an order passed by the School Tribunal on 7th March 2008, dismissing an application filed for recalling a “No W.S.” order and for taking the Written Statement on 2 record. The First Respondent is the teacher who is before the School Tribunal in an appeal against an order terminating his services. The appeal was filed on 28th November 2001 together with an application for condonation of delay and for stay of the order of termination. The application for condonation of delay was allowed on 12th August 2005 and it would appear to be common ground between the parties that the proceeding was thereafter, adjourned on several dates. On 12th July 2006, an order was passed by the Tribunal directing that the proceedings shall go on without the Written Statement of the Petitioners since no Written Statement has been filed. The appeal was listed for final arguments and according to the First Respondent's Counsel, the appeal was argued on 4th July and 11th July 2007. An application was filed before the Tribunal for setting aside the order that the proceedings shall continue without any Written Statement and for taking the Written Statement of the Petitioner on the record. The Court has been informed that a copy of the Written Statement was annexed to the application. The Tribunal rejected the application. 3 Undoubtedly, the conduct of the Petitioners in not filing the Written Statement despite several opportunities leaves much to be desired. Be that as it may, it has been stated before the Court that there was a change in the management, consequent upon elections which took place, in the meantime, on 26th August 2006. The Court has been informed that there was litigation which went upto the Supreme Court during the course of the disputes which had arisen between different factions of the management. The ends of justice would require that the Petitioners should have an opportunity to file a Written Statement particularly since the appeal has not been disposed of by the Tribunal. At the same time, an order of costs would have to be passed. The inconvenience to the Respondent can be remedied by an order for the payment of costs. Counsel appearing on behalf of the First Respondent has stated before the Court that upon the application for taking on record the Written Statement being allowed, there should be a peremptory direction for early hearing and parties should seek no further adjournment and should proceed with the hearing before the Tribunal which is now listed on 3rd May 2008. 4 In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 7th March 2008 is quashed and set aside. The Written Statement of the Petitioners herein, shall be taken on record subject to the payment of costs, quantified at Rs.10,000/- which shall be a condition precedent. Costs to be paid to the First Respondent before the next date of hearing before the Tribunal, that is, on or before 3rd May 2008. It has also been agreed before this Court that parties shall not seek any further adjournment before the Tribunal and shall proceed with the hearing of the appeal on the next date of hearing. The Tribunal shall consider all the rights and contentions of the parties including the defences raised by the Petitioners in the Written Statement. The Petition shall stand disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. .......