1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Civil Application (CAZ) No. 783 of 2010 in Letters Patent Appeal (Stamp) No. 16941 of 2010 in Writ Petition No. 550 of 1999 Regional P. F. Commissioner and another VERSUS Sanjay Memorial Teachers Educ. Society - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. R. S. Sundaram, Advocate for the applicants. Ms. T. H. Udeshi, Advocate for the non-applicant. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : JULY 4, 2011. Heard Dr. R. S. Sundaram, the learned counsel for the applicants and Ms. T. H. Udeshi, the learned counsel for the respondent. The learned counsel for the non-applicant strongly opposes the prayer made in this civil application and states that para no.2 of the civil application, filed by the applicants, does not mention the dates on which the legal opinion was sought and the administrative sanction was received. The learned counsel for the non-applicant relies on the judgment, reported in (2010) 8 S.C.C. 685, (Balwant Singh (dead) .vs. Jagdish Singh and others) to submit that even in case of the Government and its instrumentalities, the delay cannot be condoned if the applicant does not act with normal care and 2 caution. However, on hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the application and the reply filed thereto, it appears that there is sufficient cause for belatedly filing the appeal in this case. The delay is merely of 29 days and it is stated in the application that though, the certified copy was received by the applicants on 05/8/2010, the matter was referred by the applicants for the legal opinion of their counsel and after obtaining the legal opinion, the administrative and financial sanction was obtained. It is stated in the application that thereafter, the appeal was drafted and after taking the legal approval, the same was filed in this Court, on 28/2/2010. The delay has been satisfactorily explained in this case. The mere non-mentioning of the dates on which the legal opinion was sought and administrative and financial sanction was obtained, would not result in the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay, as the applicants have shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The afore-stated reported judgment in Balwant Singh’s case is distinguishable on facts and cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. In the result, the civil application is allowed and disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Diwale