1wp-602-10sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 602/2010 G.S.Rathore The Union of India and others 603/2010 G.S.Rathore The Union of India and others 604/2010 G.S.Rathore The Union of India and others 608/2010 G.S.Rathore The Union of India and others Mr S. K. Halwasia with Ms S.S.Halwasia and Mr D.V.Gangal i/b Vaishali Agane for the Petitioner. Mr Suresh Kumar, Advocate for the Respondents-Union of India. CORAM: D.K. DESHMUKH AND A.R.JOSHI,JJ DATED: 3RD MARCH,2010 P.C.:- 1. These four writ petitions are directed against the same order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, Mumbai (C.A.T., for short). In all there were 2wp-602-10sxw six O.As., filed by the petitioner before the C.A.T., challenging adverse remarks communicated to the petitioner. 2. O.A.No.575/2001 is related to the adverse remarks for the year 1992-93. O.A.No.402/2003 is related to the adverse remarks for the year 1994-95, O.A. No. 403/2003 is related to the adverse remarks for the year 1996-97, O.A.No. 408/2003 is related to the adverse remarks for the year 2001-02. The C.A.T., has rejected four O.A. Nos. 575/2001, 402/2003, 403/2003 and 407/2003, as barred by law of limitation. The Tribunal has heard two O.A. Nos. 404/2003 and 408/2003 on merits, as they were not barred by law of limitation. 3. Petitions have been already filed in this Court challenging the order passed by the C.A.T., in O.A. Nos. 404/2003 and 408/2003 by the Union of India. Those petitions have been admitted for final hearing. These petitions are directed against the order of the Tribunal rejecting four O.A. Nos. 575/2001, 402/2003, 403/2003 and 407/2003 as barred by law of limitation. The reason that has been given by the Tribunal for not condoning delay in filing these O.As., is that there is no explanation whatsoever given for not approaching the Tribunal within time. Why the petitioner waited for such a long time to file the O.As, when the representations filed by him against the adverse remarks were 3wp-602-10sxw not decided within the period of six months? 4. It is true that the power of the Court to condone delay is to be liberally exercised, but when the court finds that there is no explanation given for the delay court does not have the power to condone the delay. The finding in the present case is that the petitioner has not disclosed any reason for the delay and therefore, in our opinion, the order cannot be interfered with. In any case condonation of delay is in the discretion of the Court and once the Court exercises that discretion and for reasons disclosed declines to condone the delay, it will not be appropriate for this Court to interfere with the order in its extra-ordinary jurisdiction because an order either condoning or declining to condone the delay is essentially in the discretion of the Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as two petitions filed by the Union of India being Nos. 3457/2009 and 3456/2009 against the order passed in O.A.No. 404/2003 and 408/2003 have been admitted for final hearing, these petitions should also be admitted. In our opinion, submission is not well founded. Because though the petitions are directed against the common order, question to be considered in that two petitions is totally different. O.A. Nos.404 and 408/2003 have been decided on merit and that order is challenged in the writ petition. There is no 4wp-602-10sxw question raised there about the delay. In our opinion, therefore, the present petitions cannot be entertained. They are hereby rejected. (JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH) (JUSTICE A.R.JOSHI)