1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5213 OF 2009 Madhukar Kashinath More. ... ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... ... ... Respondents. Mr. N. V. Bandivadekar for the Petitioner. Ms. S. S. Bhende, AGP for Respondents. CORAM : D. D. SINHA and A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 7TH JANUARY, 2010. P. C.: Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Asstt. Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 23rd March, 2009 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 2 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the petitioner was removed from the service, the petitioner was pursuing the remedy of representation with the Authority and therefore there is some delay caused in approaching the Tribunal. It is contended that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration this aspect of the matter and therefore came to the wrong conclusion that the petitioner failed to justify the delay caused in approaching the Tribunal. It is, therefore, contended that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are unsustainable in law. 4. Learned Asstt. Government Pleader supported the impugned order. 5. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Asstt. Government Pleader and also perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 6. It is no doubt true that normally the matters should be decided on merits. However, we cannot turn nelson eye to the facts of growing population, increasing competition as well as globalisation and therefore people are required to be vigilant and must approach the Authority/Court/Tribunal within the stipulated period for redressal of their grievance. If there is a delay in approaching the Authority/Court/Tribunal they must be able to show the reasonable cause for such delay. Making representation to the Authority as such cannot be treated to be reasonable cause to condone the delay of more than two years and therefore the order of the Tribunal in our view is sustainable in law. 3 7. Consequently, no interference is called for. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (D. D. SINHA, J.) Sd/- (A. A. SAYED, J.)