:1: 276.09-LPA bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 276 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3904 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.269 OF 2009 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 276 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3904 OF 2008 The Dy. Secretary, Rural Development and Water Conservation Department & Ors. ..Appellants Vs. Housiram Ramkrishna Ugale ..Respondent Mr.N.P.Deshpande, AGP for appellants. Ms.Seema Sarnaik with Ameya Tamhane for respondent. CORAM : V .C.DAGA & R.G.KETKAR,JJ. DATE : FEBRUARY 7, 2011 P.C. Heard. Perused appeal. 2. We were taken through the impugned order dated 17th July 2008, paragraph No.4 of which, reads as under: “4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned orders of the revisional Court as well as of the Labour Court. The order of the Labour Court is read before me by both the learned Advocates as well as the revisional order also. It is required to be noted that the order of the Industrial Court is passed on 28th March, 2007. The petition is filed in the month of June, 2008 i.e. after :2: 276.09-LPA a period of one year and two months. For all this period, the Department has flouted the orders as there was no interim stay operating, obviously because petition was not filed at all. The Department cannot flout the orders of the court in this manner on its own. No satisfactory grounds have been made out as to why the petition was not filed within a reasonable period and why no attempt was made for getting stay of the order of the Labour Court which is confirmed by the Industrial Court. The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court is not required to be exercised in favour of such a litigant who disobeyed the order of the Court for a considerable time without obtaining any stay order against such order. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the respondent was discharging his duties since 1985. Considering the nature of evidence, the Court has found that the petitioner is in ‘industry’. Even as per the say of the learned AGP, alternate employment was offered to the respondent in this very department by the Department itself. Considering the said aspect and more particularly in view of the fact that the Department had even not bothered to take any steps on its own for such a long time, this is not a case in which this Court would try to assist such a petitioner by exercising its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Even the impugned order is being challenged belatedly. No doubt the delay has been condoned subject to payment of costs of Rs.1500/- but the fact remains that observations made by the learned Single Judge are not unwarranted. 4. Apart from the above, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is a reasonable and possible view. By no stretch of imagination, the said view can be said to be perverse warranting interference at the hands of this Court. In this view of the matter, the appeal stands dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. 5. In view of the dismissal of the Writ Petition, the Civil Application does not survive. Hence, the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs. (R.G.KETKAR,J.) (V .C.DAGA,J.)