( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2655 OF 2010 Vitthal s/o Bhaurao Mhaske PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ... Mr. Amol N. Kakade, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.H. Borade, AGP for the respondent/State. Mr. A.B. Tele, advocate for the respondent No. 4. ... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 5th July, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The impugned order challenged by the petitioner is regarding condonation of delay. The application for condonation of delay was allowed. The contention of the petitioner is that the averments in paragraph No. 5 of the written statement were not considered and delay could not be of only four (4) days. The impugned order is discretionary one. Counsel for the respondent No. 4 makes a statement that cost of Rs. 500/- awarded to the petitioner is received by him and that the petitioner thereby acquiesced himself to the ( 2 ) impugned order. It appears that the petition involves disputed questions of fact. Moreover, the impugned order is of discretionary nature and the School Tribunal appears to have taken a liberal view while condoning the delay. Consequently, in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction. I do not find it necessary to interfere with the impugned order. Petition is dismissed. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp2655-2010