1 6 wp 10260.10.doc K IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10260 OF 2010 Dr.Pradnya Gopalrao Giradkar .. Petitioner Vs. University of Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents Ms. Ushajee Peri i/b Mr. Mihir Desai for the petitioner. Mr. K..K. Jadhav for respondents. CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE: 15th JULY, 2011 PC: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner placed on record a letter dated 3rd February, 2011 showing that the Respondent no.1 – University is served. The same is taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. 3. This Court (Coram: Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.) by order dated 18th February, 2011 made it clear that Petition may be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 2 6 wp 10260.10.doc 4. The Petitioner - original Appellant challenges the order dated 30th November, 2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Mumbai University and S.N.D.T. University College Tribunal, on the application for condonation of delay dated 14th July, 2010 rejecting the Petitioners prayer for condonation of 2 years 7 months and 6 days delay in preferring the Appeal under section 57 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. 5. A few facts of the matter are as under: After holding enquiry the Respondent no.1 terminated the Petitioner’s services as Lecturer on 7th December, 2007. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner approached the Grievance Committee and Grievance Committee on 10th July, 2008 made recommendations. As those recommendations were not implemented or accepted by Respondent nos. 2 and 3, Petitioner wrote several letters dated 11th August, 2008, 12th August, 2008, 15th September, 2008, 24th April, 2009, 28th April, 2009, 16th May, 2009, 15th June, 2009 and 18th September, 2009 to the various authorities including Respondent nos. 2 and 3. Inspite of several letters Respondent 3 6 wp 10260.10.doc nos. 1 and 2 failed to implement the recommendations given by the Grievance Committee. Thereafter, the Petitioner also approached the Joint Director of Higher Education Department, Mumbai for directing Respondent nos. 1 and 2 to implement the suggestions of Grievance Committee. Pursuant to her Application the Joint Director by his letter dated 23th July, 2009 wrote a letter to the Secretary, Mumbai University, Fort, Mumbai requesting to take appropriate action. As nothing happened inspite of several communications, Petitioner approached this court by filing Writ Petition No.97 of 2010 on 2nd December, 2009. In the said Writ Petition, the Division Bench of this court passed order on 18th June, 2010 holding that the Petitioner has alternative efficacious remedy by way of appeal to the University and College Tribunal. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Thereafter, immediately the Petitioner filed Appeal under section 57 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 before the Mumbai University and College Tribunal, Mumbai on 14th July, 2010 and preferred Miscellaneous Application No.6 of 2010 for condonation of delay. The said Application was dismissed by the learned Presiding Officer of Mumbai University and College Tribunal, 4 6 wp 10260.10.doc Mumbai by impugned order dated 30th November, 2010. Hence, present Petition. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the learned Presiding Officer erred in coming to the conclusion that Petitioner has not explained the delay of 2 years 11 months and 6 days in preferring the Appeal. He submits that initially the Petitioner approached the Grievance Committee and the Grievances Committee issued the recommendations dated 10th July, 2008. Thereafter, the Petitioner sent several letters to the authority for acting as per Grievances Committee’s suggestions. Inspite of those letters the Respondent nos. 2 and 3 failed to implement the same. Therefore, Petitioner approached the Joint Director of Higher Education. Pursuant to the said letters the Joint Director of Higher Education, Mumbai by letter dated 23rd July, 2009 to the Secretary, Mumbai University, Fort, Mumbai directed to take immediate action. As nothing happened till that date, the Petitioner approached this court by preferring Writ Petition no.97 of 2010 on 7th December, 2009. The said Writ Petition was decided by this Court on 18th June, 2010. Thereafter, the Petitioner immediately filed the Appeal on 14th July, 2010 i.e. 5 6 wp 10260.10.doc within 30 days from the order passed by the Division Bench of this court in Writ Petition no.97 of 2010. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the delay in preferring the Appeal was caused as the Petitioner approached the Grievance Committee and thereafter this court in Writ Petition no.97 of 2010. She submits that the explanation given by the Petitioner for the delay for preparing application before the Tribunal is fully supported by the facts and circumstances put forward by her and in the legal parlance it amounts to sufficient cause for the delay in filing application before the Tribunal and as such the order passed by the Tribunal rejecting the Petitioner’s application is liable to be set aside and her application deserves to be allowed. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent nos. 1 and 2 vehemently opposed the present petition. He filed affidavit-in-reply dated 16th March, 2011 opposing the present petition. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondents submits that the Petitioner failed to explain the delay of 2 years 7 months and 6 days in preferring the Appeal under section 57 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 6 6 wp 10260.10.doc 1994 before the Tribunal; therefore, the Tribunal rightly rejected the Petitioner’s Application for condonation of delay. He submits that though the Petitioner knew that the proper procedure was to file Appeal under section 57 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, the Petitioner intentionally preferred the Application before Grievance Committee and thereafter, filed Writ Petition in this court. He submits that the Petitioner since the beginning had been making several complaints against the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 before the Police Commissioner, Voice Chancellor, Mumbai University, Human Rights Commission etc. and when the Petitioner knew how to make complaints to several authorities, she could have taken appropriate steps to challenge the termination order dated 7th December, 2007 by preferring Appeal under section 57 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. According to him as the Petitioner failed to file the Appeal within 30 days under section 57 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, there is no question of condoning the delay. Thus he submits that the Petitioner failed to make out sufficient cause for condonation of delay and therefore the Petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. 7 6 wp 10260.10.doc 8. It is to be noted that as soon as Respondent nos. 2 and 3 terminated the Petitioner’s services on 7th December, 2007 she immediately filed her grievance before the Grievances Committee. The Grievances Committee took decision on 10th July, 2008. Thereafter, the Petitioner wrote several letters to the authority for the implementation of the decision of the Grievances Committee. Inspite of several letters, as the authority failed to take appropriate steps, the Petitioner preferred Writ Petition no.97 of 2010 before this court for implementing the decision of the Grievance Committee. This Court by an order dated 18th June, 2010 dismissed the said Writ Petition on the ground that alternative and efficacious remedy was available to the Petitioner. Immediately within 30 days the Petitioner preferred the Appeal on 14th July, 2010. All these facts are stated by the learned Presiding Officer in his order dated 30th November, 2010. The learned Presiding Officer without considering these facts dismissed the Petitioner’s Miscellaneous Application no. 6 of 2010 for condonation of delay on the ground that there is no explanation as to why there was one month delay after the order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition no. 97 of 2010. It is to be noted that after 8 6 wp 10260.10.doc the order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 97 of 2010 on 18th June, 2010, the Petitioner immediately filed the Appeal on 4th July, 2010. 9. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and averments made in the Application for condonation of delay, I am satisfied that the Petitioner has shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 10. The Apex Court in the matter of N. Balakrishna vs. M. Krishnamurty reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123 held that the word sufficient cause should be construed liberally. Object of fixing time limit is not made to destroy rights. It is founded on public policy fixing life span for the legal remedy for the general welfare. Paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 read thus: “8. The appellant's conduct does not on the whole warrant to castigate him as an irresponsible litigant. What he did in defending the suit was not very much far from what a litigant would broadly do. Of course, it may be said that he should have been more vigilant by visiting his advocate at short intervals to check up the progress of the litigation. But during these days when 9 6 wp 10260.10.doc everybody is fully occupied with his own avocation of life an omission to adopt such extra vigilance need not be used as a ground to depict him as a litigant not aware of his responsibilities, and to visit him with drastic consequences. 9. It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first court refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior court to come to its own finding even untrammeled by the conclusion of the lower court. 10 6 wp 10260.10.doc 10. The reason for such a different stance is thus: The primary function of a court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time- limit fixed for approaching the court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause. 11. Rule of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The 11 6 wp 10260.10.doc idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. 12. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749].” 11. In similar way the Apex Court in the matter of Bhagmal vs. M.P. Co-operative Marketing & Consumer Federation Ltd. & Others. reported in (2003) 11 SCC 727 the Supreme Court condoned the delay of six years after setting aside the order of the High Court. The head note A of the reported judgment reads thus: “Limitation Act, 1963 – S. 5 – Delay of 6 years in filing statutory appeal – Condonation of, by Appellate Authority concerned – Interference with by High Court – Property – Where the Appellate Authority acting within its jurisdiction condoned the delay after being 12 6 wp 10260.10.doc satisfied with the facts stated in relation thereto, the High Court in exercise of its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution erred in interfering with the said order of Appellate Authority, particularly when it enabled the party to pursue his statutory remedy.” 12. Even the Apex Court in the matter of Shangrila Food Products Ltd. and another vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and another reported in (1996) 5 SCC 54 held that the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can take cognizance of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and pass appropriate orders to give the parties complete and sufficient justice. 13.In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances. a) The Writ Petition is allowed. b) The impugned order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Mumbai University and College Tribunal, Mumbai dated 30th November, 2010 passed in Miscellaneous Application No.6 of 2010 is set aside. 13 6 wp 10260.10.doc c) The Application filed by the Petitioner for condonation of delay being Miscellaneous Application No.6 of 2010 is allowed. d) The Mumbai University and College Tribunal, Mumbai is directed to register the Petitioner’s Appeal and decide the same according to law. e) No order as to costs. (K.K.TATED,J.)