1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5378 OF 2010 Shri Shivaji Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Hingoli, through its Secretary, Vasant Eknathrao Pawar, Age 45 years, Occ. Agri., R/o Kothlaj Road, Hingoli, District Hingoli ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The National Council for Teacher Education, Wing-2, Hans Bhawan-1, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 002 2. National Council for Teacher Education, Western Regional Committee, Bhopal ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri Sachin Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner Shri S.S. Bora, Advocate for respondents ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED: 21st July, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER HARDAS, J.): 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner impugns the order dated 26.5.2010, issued by the appellate authority, rejecting the appeal of the present petitioner on account of the fact that the appeal was beyond the period of limitation by one year 4 months and 11 days. 3. We need not advert to the facts. Suffice it to say that the petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of the Committee, declining to grant recognition to the petitioner institute for starting D.Ed. course, preferred an appeal. Undisputedly, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was beyond the period of limitation by one year 4 months and 11 days. Though the petitioner did not submit a letter/ application, seeking to explain the delay, the learned counsel for the petitioner very candidly admitted that no reason as such was really spelt out by the petitioner in the said letter/ application. Anyway, the appellate authority rejected the said application and ultimately dismissed the appeal. 4. We have heard Mr. Sachin Deshmukh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. S.S. Bora, learned counsel on behalf of the respondents. According to us, since a valuable right of the petitioner, especially seeking recognition to start the D.Ed. course is involved, another opportunity ought to be extended to the petitioner to satisfactorily explain the delay which has arisen in the submission of 3 the appeal. We accordingly allow this writ petition, quash and set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the appellate authority for a decision afresh by granting an opportunity to the petitioner of filing an application explaining the reason for delay in submission of the appeal. Since this writ petition has been pending in this Court, we restrict the explanation of the petitioner to the delay which has arisen for one year 4 months and 11 days only. 5. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner made a genuine offer of depositing an amount of Rs.5000/- with the High Court Bar Association Library towards costs. We find the offer to be not only genuine, but generous also and accordingly, permit the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.5000/- with the High Court Bar Association Library. In that light of the matter, therefore, no further costs are imposed. 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (P.V. HARDAS, J.)