1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6530 OF 2008 Siddanagoud Shanthveergouda .. Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India and others .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2906 OF 2009 Rajkumar Shivshankar Pandey .. Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India and others .. Respondents Shri K. C. Sant, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri Alok Sharma, Standing Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 to 4. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 22nd July, 2009. ORAL ORDER [ Per B. R. Gavai, J.] : 1. The petitioner has restricted his claim in the petition for decision of the revision filed by him challenging appellate order. 2 The revision has been dismissed on the ground that revision is filed beyond the prescribed limitation. 2. This Court in the case of Madhao Somaji Sarode Vs. Jotiba Dhyan Upasak Shikshan Sanstha Dudhala and others, reported in [ 2004(3) Mh. L. J. 1078], has held that, if an authority finds that appeal is filed beyond the limitation, it should not be dismissed on that ground alone and an opportunity should be given to the appellant to file an application for condonation of delay and decide the said application and only after such an application is decided, decide the appeal on merits. In that view of the matter, we find that the petitioners petition can be disposed of with following order. The petitioner shall file an application for condonation of delay before the revisional authority. Said application shall be filed within three weeks from today. On such application being filed, revisional authority shall decide the same on the delay being condoned. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ B. R. GAVAI, J.] bsb/July 09