1 WP 6457.2011 - [ J ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6457 OF 2011 Dr. Kalyan S/o Ramsaheb Kolhe Age : 50 Yrs., Occ. Medical Practitioner R/o : Shriram Hospital, Kumbhartale Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar. .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Civil Surgeon - cum- Appropriate Authority Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar, Dist. : Ahmednagar. 3. Medical Superintendent (Class-I) Rural Hospital, Jamkhed, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. R.N.Dhorde, Advocate instructed by Mr.V.M.Humbe, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. K.B.Choudhari, Addl. Govt. Pleader for State. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 06/09/2011 2 WP 6457.2011 - [ J ] ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Govt. Pleader for the State. 3. The petitioner had preferred Appeal before the State Appellate Appropriate Authority [ For short, ‘ said authority ’ ]. The said Appeal was barred by limitation by 18 days. The said authority dismissed the Appeal on the ground that the same is not filed within the prescribed period of limitation and no sufficient reasons are stated. The said order is assailed in the present Writ Petition. 4. Mr. R.N. Dhorde, learned counsel instructed by Mr. V.M.Humbe, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay which is caused is a technical delay. In fact, the order dated 14/09/2010 was the subject matter of Appeal. A copy of the same was received on 24/09/2010. However, the petitioner could not get the certified copy. The petitioner was directed to approach to the Tahsildar to get the certified copy. As such, the petitioner had to move the Tahsildar on 11/10/2010, thereafter the copy was received 3 WP 6457.2011 - [ J ] and the Appeal was immediately filed. According to the learned counsel, sufficient cause was stated for non filing of Appeal within the prescribed period of 30 days. 5. Mr. K.B.Choudhari, the learned Additional Govt. Pleader for State submits that the said authority has taken into consideration the fact that no sufficient cause is stated under sub Rule ( 4 ) of Rule 19 of the Pre-conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostice Techniques ( Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 [ For short, ‘ said Rules ’ ] unless sufficient cause is shown, the delay can not be condoned. 6. The right of Appeal is a statutory right. Sub Rule ( 4 ) of Rule 19 of the said Rules empowers the authority to condone the delay if sufficient cause is shown. It is on record that the petitioner had received the copy of the order against which the Appeal was filed on 24/09/2010 and thereafter he had to move the Tahsildar as per the direction of the said authority to obtain the certified copy. The time was lost for the same. Sufficient explanation is given by the petitioner in this regard. It is also a trite law that when technical considerations and cause for substantial justice are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice shall be sub-served. 7. Taking into account the above conspectus of the matter, 4 WP 6457.2011 - [ J ] it is manifest that the petitioner has shown sufficient cause. 8. In light of the above, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The parties are relegated before the said authority. The said authority shall decide the Appeal on its own merits after giving an opportunity to the parties to put-forth their case. Needless to state that the petitioner is entitled file such documents on which he places reliance. The parties shall appear before the said authority on 19/09/2011. The said authority shall decide the said Appeal expeditiously. Authenticated copy be given. 9. Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] KNP/WP 6457.2011 - [ J ]