1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR C.A.Z. NO.362/2011 IN L.P.A. ST. 3334/2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2791/2001 Sayyad Nabi Sayyed Bhuru ..vs..M.S.R.T.C. Nagpur and anor - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri B.M. Khan, adv for applicants Shri R.S. Charpe adv for R-1 Mrs. Deshmukh, AGP for R-2. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & P.B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 04, 2011. Heard. This is an application for condonation of delay of more than one year in filing the letters patent appeal. It is stated in the application that the applicant was not in a position to spend money on filing the letters patent appeal and was required to wait for getting the arrears in respect of which an order came to be passed on 24.11.2010. It is stated in the application that after the arrears were received by the petitioner in the month of December, 2010, the applicant approached the advocate for filing the letters patent appeal and filed it on 31.1.2011. The prayer made in this civil application is strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents. It is stated on behalf of the respondents that the reason stated in the application for not filing the letters patent appeal within time, is not genuine and bonafide as the applicant was 2 working as a peon and was getting his regular salary. In such circumstances, according to the learned counsel for the respondents there was no reason for the applicant to wait for receiving the arrears of salary till the month of December 2010 and belatedly file the letters patent appeal on 31.1.2011. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the application, it appears that the inordinate delay in filing the letters patent appeal has not been satisfactorily explained by the applicant. The applicant was not required to pay any heavy court fees for filing the letters patent appeal and therefore, the case of the applicant that he was waiting for receiving the part of the arrears of salary is not believable. The delay in this case appears to be unexplained. Hence the civil application is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE SMP