wp6855.09.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6855 OF 2009 Mr. Harishchandra Kadshinath Funde ....Petitioner. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents. Mr. A.M. Joshi for the Petitioner. Mr. P.I. Khemani, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. M.A. Patil for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 20th April, 2010 P.C.: 1 By the impugned order, the School Tribunal, Pune, rejected the application of the Petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal. There is an averments made in the application of condonation of delay, referring to the appointment of Petitioner as a teacher from 14th June, 2004 and the fact that he continued to work till Diwali vacation i.e. 10th November, 2008. The Respondent-Management has denied the same by filing the reply and also denied/opposed condonation of delay Application by contending that he was terminated in the year 2007 itself. Therefore, there is a substantial delay and not only of 65 days as contended. 2 The learned School Tribunal, Pune, however, considering the material available on record, rejected the Application. In my view, the aspect of the wp6855.09.sxw 2 averments raised in para 1 as referred above, needs to be considered by giving full opportunity to both the parties and if, this is substantiated by the Petitioner, in that case the delay would be of 65 days only. 3 Therefore, in the interest of justice, as it goes to the root of the matter, so far as the condonation of delay Application is concerned, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back for giving full opportunity to both the parties oral as well as documentary evidence, if necessary. The learned School Tribunal to dispose of the application preferably within four months. 4 The Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)