1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8132 OF 2010 Rashtriya Charitable Education Trust, Rashtriya Adhyapak Vidyalaya, Gut No. 165 Mitmita, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad Through its Secretary, Nitin s/o. Suresh Patil, Age 39 yrs., Occu. Business, R/o. Parwati 25, New Samrath Nagar, Aurangabad. ....Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through, Secretary of School Education & Sport Department, Mantralay, Mumbai - 32. 2. The Regional Director, National Council for Teachers Education (N.C.T.E.) Western Regional Committee, Manas Bhavan, Shamla Hills, Bhopal (M.P.) 462 002. 3. The Member Secretary, N.C.T.E. New Delhi. (A Statutory Body of Government of India), New Delhi. ....Respondents. Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent No. 1. Mr. S.S. Bora, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED : 1st October, 2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : [ Per B.R. GAVAI, J.] 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court, challenging the order dated 2nd of August 2010 passed by the respondent No.3, thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner for condonation of delay caused in filing the appeal. 3. Shri. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner had given sufficient reasons for condoning delay caused in filing the appeal. He, therefore, submits that the learned authority ought to have condoned the delay and entertained the appeal on merits. 4. Shri. Bora, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, on the contrary, vehemently opposes the petition. He submits that no reasonable explanation is given in the application for condoning the delay, hence, the application is rightly rejected. 5. After taking into consideration reasons given in the application for condonation of delay, we find that, it would have been in the interest of justice to condone the delay and entertain the appeal on its own merit. In that view of the matter, the order dated 2nd August 2010 passed by the respondent No. 3 is quashed and set aside. Delay caused in filing 3 the appeal is condoned. The respondent No. 3 is directed to decide the appeal of the petitioner on its own merits. 6. Shri. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner states that by way of costs, the petitioner would deposit an amount of Rs. 5,000/- with the High Court Bar Association's Library at Aurangabad. We accept the aforesaid statement and direct the petitioner to deposit the cost within a period of two weeks from today. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. [ A. A. SAYED ] [ B. R. GAVAI ] Judge Judge ssc/wp8132.10