1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Writ Petition No. 3053 of 2009 Dnyaneshwar s/o. Roopchand Sonwane. .. Petitioner. versus The Additional Commissioner for Revenue, Nashik Road, Nashik, & 50 Others. .. Respondents. .................. Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.D. Kaldate, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1. Mr. V.B. Patil, Advocate, for respondent no.1 caveator. .................. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 8TH JUNE 2009. COURT’S ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 17th April 2009 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik, thereby allowing the application filed by the respondent no.4 for condonation of delay in filing 2 Election Petition under Section 144T of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. 2. Mr. V.D. Hon, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that in earlier round of litigation also, the respondent no.1 had condoned the delay without assigning any reason and as such, the petitioner was required to approach this court. It is submitted that this court had remanded the matter and directed the respondent no.1 to take into consideration the rival submissions and pass a speaking order. It is submitted that in spite of this, the respondent no.1 has condoned the delay in a casual and cursory manner. 3. Mr. S.D. Kaldate, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for respondent no.1, and Mr. V.B. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.4, have vehemently opposed the petition. 4. Perusal of the impugned order would reveal that though the result was declared on 18th June 2008, the respondent no.4 had applied for certified copy on 12th August 2008. It can further be seen that repeated requests were made by respondent no.4 for issuing certified copy. The certified copy was made available only on 6th October 2008 and thereafter on 13th October 2008, Election Petition came to be filed by 3 the respondent no.4. 5. Taking into consideration these aspects of the matter and particularly the period which was required in obtaining the certified copy, it cannot be said that the discretion exercised by the respondent no.1 has been exercised in a perverse manner. As such, no interference is warranted in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ...................... bgp/wp3053