1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5408 OF 2009 Govind Kisanrao Mundhe ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. G.R. Ingole Patil, advocate for the petitioner Mr. V.D. Godbharle, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3. ..... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 25TH JUNE, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.4.2009 passed by respondent No.2 Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad in File No. 2009/DB/Desk-2/ZPVP/Appeal/CR/382/09. 2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally immediately. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed only one point 2 for consideration that the appeal, which was preferred by the respondent No.5 was not filed within seven days from the date of order passed by the Additional Collector, Nanded. Though other grounds are taken in the petition, none of them are pressed by the counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel invited my attention to the application which was filed on behalf of respondent No.5 for condonation of delay before the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. According to learned counsel, there was delay in filing appeal challenging the order dated 15/16.1.2009, passed by the Additional Collector, Nanded, before the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. According to the counsel for the petitioner no powers are vested in the Divisional Commissioner (Revenue) to condone the delay. The appeal filed by respondent No.5 ought not to have been entertained by the said authority. He thus, submitted that the petition may be allowed. 4 Learned A.G.P. invited my attention to the impugned judgment and order passed by the Divisional Commissioner. On perusal of the copy of the judgment, it clearly appears that the appeal is filed by respondent No.5 challenging the order dated 15/16.1.2009 passed by the Additional Collector, Nanded on 20.2.2009. Learned A.G.P. also invited my attention to para 3 and 4 of the application which was filed on behalf of the respondent No.5 before the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. On perusal of para 3 of the said application, it appears that the Additional Collector, Nanded has allowed the appeal by order 3 dated 15/16.1.2009 and the said information was received by the respondent No.5 on 17.2.2009, by post. 5 As already stated herein above, it is clearly mentioned in the judgment of the Divisional Commissioner that the appeal was filed on 20.2.2009, therefore, the appeal which was filed by the respondent No. 5 before the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad challenging the order dated 15/16.1.2009 passed by the Additional Collector, Nanded in appeal is well within limitation. Therefore, the petition devoid of any merits. There is no substance in the petition. Petition stands dismissed. Rule discharged. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) rlj/