1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2618 OF 2010 Shri Om Namah Pratishthan ...Petitioner Versus National Council for Teacher’s Education & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.S.B.Yawalkar withh Mr.Abhijeet J.Kandarkar for Petitioner. Mr.Uday Warunjikar for Respondents 1 & 2. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATED:- APRIL 7, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Mr.Warunjikar waives notice for Respondents 1 and 2. 3. As short question is involved, Petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 4. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India essentially takes exception to the order dated 7/8th January 2010 passed by the Under Secretary of Respondent No.1. The Appeal preferred by the 2 Petitioner has been rejected on the ground that it is barred by limitation. There was 6 months 19 days delay in filing of this Appeal. The order as passed by the Respondent No.1 reads thus: “To, The President, Shree Om Namah Pratishthan, At Post, Kharghar, Tal.Panvel, Dist. Raigad, Maharashtra. Subject : Appeal in respect of Shree Om Namah Pratishthan, Raigad, Maharashtra regarding D.Ed (Co.Ed). Sir, I am directed to refer to your appeal dated 01/12/2009 received in this office on 01/12/2009 preferred against the order no.WRC/APW06489/122647 (Addl.)/110th/CLA/2008/52524 dated 14/03/2009 and to say that you have preferred the appeal after the expiry of stipulated period of sixty days, since, the appeal is late by 06 months 19 days the Council has decided not to admit the same. 2. Your appeal has therefore not been admitted and be treated as disposed accordingly. 3. The DD no.335712 dated 01/12/2009 of Rs.10,000/- is hereby returned in original. This issues with the approval of the Chairperson, NCTE. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (P.Subba Laxmi) Under Secretary” 3 5. On plain reading of this communication, it is obvious that no reason whatsoever has been recorded as to why the Authority was disinclined to accept the explanation offered by the Petitioner as sufficient cause for condoning the delay. That explanation is found in the Appeal as well as accompanying Application filed by the Petitioner. The fact that there was delay of 6 months 19 days in filing of the Appeal, by itself, cannot be the basis to throw out the Appeal summarily, especially when there is discretion in the Authority to condone the delay in case the Appellant is able to make out sufficient cause by virtue of Section 18(2) of the Act. 6. In the circumstances, we think it appropriate to quash and set- aside this decision and relegate the Petitioner before the Respondent No.1, who in turn, shall decide the Application for condonation of delay on its own merits and record reasons in support of its final decision which if adverse to the Petitioner, it will be open to the Petitioner to assail the same before the proper forum. 4 7. The Appeal as well as Application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner in terms of this order stands restored to the file of the Respondent No.1, to be proceeded in accordance with law. 8. Petition disposed of accordingly. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)