1 wp4064.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4064 OF 2011 The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Through its Senior Divisional Manager, Adalat Road, Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER VERSUS Shri. Shankar Dattatarao Tapase, Age: 23 years, Occ: Agriculture & Milk, R/o. Mahatala, Taluka Hadgaon, District Nanded and another. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioner. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 24TH NOVEMBER, 2011 PER COURT : . Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition takes exception to the order dated 13-12-2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nanded in R.J.E (M.A.C.P. No.10 of 2010). By the impugned order, 2 wp4064.11 the application for condonation of delay in filing the review is rejected. 3. The Counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to the averments in the application which was filed for condonation of delay. According to the Counsel for the petitioner, paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of the said application are important. Said paragraphs are reproduced herein below. 5. In fact, the applicant should have file an application for review at the earliest, but for taking decision in respect of appeal, review or satisfaction of award in complicated cases touching to the very root of the matter, the Divisional office have to take consent of Higher Authority which is at Nagpur etc., and thus the delay for filing review application is called. 6. At the same time as stated under para No.2 of the application, the 3 wp4064.11 Divisional office Nanded has to deal MACT affairs in respect of Nanded, Parbhani and Latur district and thus due to heavy burden of work and unavoidable circumstances, the delay for filing review is caused which is not an intentional, but it is based on genuine reason. 4. Relying on the averments in the said paragraphs, the Counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the delay should have been condoned. Learned Counsel also argued on merits. 5. Upon hearing the Counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the contents of the application which was filed for condonation of delay, in my considered opinion, there was no any sufficient cause which was disclosed in the application for condonation of delay. The permission was to be taken from the head office and this circumstance cannot be said to be beyond the control. Any affair between the applicant and head office is the internal matter. There was 4 wp4064.11 delay of nine months and twenty two days and in absence of any satisfactory explanation, the concerned Court was justified and correct in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. No interference is called for. Writ Petition is dismissed. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/NOV11