- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5342/2010 Maharashtra Shikshan Samiti, Nilanga, Dist.Latur, through its Executive President Shri Vijayrao Shivajirao Nilangekar, age 46 yrs., occu.social work r/o Nilanga Tq.Nilanga Dist.Latur. ...Petitioner.. Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary (Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2] The Dy.Secretary, National Council for Teacher Education, Hans Bhavan, Wing II, Bahadurshah Jafar Marg, New Delhi – 110 002. 3] The Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education, Western Regional Committee, Shamla Hills, Manas Bhavan, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh). ...Respondents... ..... Shri Vivek Bhavthankar, Advocate h/f Shri S.G. Rudrawar, Advocate for petitioner. - 2 - Smt.A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent no.1. Shri S.S. Bora, Advocate for respondent nos.2 & 3. ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE: 30.07.2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Hardas, J.): 1] Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2] The petitioner, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, takes exception to the order dated 26.5.2010 passed by the Deputy Secretary, National Council for Teacher Education, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner on the ground of delay. The petitioner also prays for directing the appellate authority to consider the appeal on merits and decide the same. 3] In the light of the limited relief, which the petitioner has sought for in this petition, according to us, it is not necessary to advert in detail to the facts pleaded in this petition. Suffice it to state that the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the decision of the committee rejecting his application for recognition / approval came to be dismissed by the appellate authority on the ground that the appeal was - 3 - beyond the period of limitation by 10 months. The reason given by the petitioner for condoning the delay did not find favour with the authority. 4] We have heard Shri Vivek Bhavthankar, learned counsel h/f Shri S.G. Rudrawar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Smt.A.V. Gondhalekar, learned AGP on behalf of respondent no.1 and Shri S.S. Bora, learned counsel on behalf of respondent nos.2 & 3. 5] With the assistance of the counsel, we have also perused the order passed by the appellate authority. It is undisputed that the appeal filed by the petitioner was late by 10 months. The petitioner has, however, given the reason that copy of the impugned order, against which the appeal was to be filed, was misplaced and was not traceable and, therefore, the appeal could not be filed within time. As soon as copy of the order was located, the appeal came to be filed, which was unfortunately late by 10 months. 6] According to us, the petitioner has offered a plausible explanation for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. In the event the appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay, the petitioner has no other alternative remedy available for challenging the judgment of the appellate Court. We are, therefore, inclined to allow this petition and condone the delay and direct the appellate authority to decide the appeal of the petitioner on merits. Shri Vivek Bhavthankar, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that by way of costs, the petitioner would deposit - 4 - an amount of Rs.5,000/- in the High Court Bar Association Library at Aurangabad. We appreciate the gesture, which according to us, is extremely generous. We accordingly allow this petition, quash and set aside the order of the appellate authority, remit the matter back to the appellate authority by condoning the delay and direct the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits. Rule is made absolute accordingly. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. (N.D. Deshpande, J.) (P.V. Hardas, J.) ndk/c3071030