{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2023 OF 2011 Rajkumar s/o Govindrao Gaikwad Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & others Respondents Mr.J.R.Patil, advocate for the petitioner Mr. N.R.Shaikh, A.G.P. for respondents no.1, 3 & 4. Mr.S.S.Manale, advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM : S.S.SHINDE, J. DATE : 16 th November, 2011 PER COURT: 1 Heard learned Counsel for respective parties. 2 This writ petition takes exception to the order dated 06.11.2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad in Appeal No.DB/Appeal/Cell/01/2010. 3 Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to the contents of the application which was filed for condonation of delay caused in filing the appeal before the Additional Commissioner. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order stopping five increments of the {2} petitioner came to be passed on 4th September, 2006. Thereafter the petitioner herein wanted to challenge the said order by way of filing Civil Suit. Therefore, he issued notice under Section 280 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 to the Zilla Parishad and State authorities. According to the Counsel for the petitioner and as it is evident from perusal of letter written by the Desk Officer, Government of Maharashtra to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Latur, that the Chief Executive Officer was directed by the Government of Maharashtra to take further action. The petitioner was awaiting further communication/notice from the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Latur. However, he could not get any reply and, therefore, he decided to file an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. Therefore, according to the Counsel for the petitioner, delay has been properly explained in the application which was filed for condonation of delay and sufficient cause was disclosed for condoning the delay. However, the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, taking hyper technical view, rejected the application for condoning the delay. Therefore, Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition may be allowed. 4 On the other hand, learned Counsel for Respondents, relying upon the reasons recorded by the Additional Commissioner, would submit that this writ petition is devoid of merit, same may {3} be rejected. 5 I have given due consideration to the rival contentions. From the reasons recorded by the Additional Commissioner in the impugned order, it is not understandable that the Additional Commissioner, while rejecting the application for condonation of delay, has recorded the reason that the delay cannot be condoned for extraneous considerations and the appellant cannot take benefit of the official communications between two authorities. Such reasoning recorded by the Additional Commissioner cannot be countenanced. The petitioner, in the application for condonation of delay, has properly explained the delay. There is 90 days' limitation for filing the appeal as per Rule 16 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964. The right of appeal of the petitioner cannot be defeated on hyper technical ground when sufficient cause has been disclosed in the application for condonation of delay. 6 In that view of the matter, application for condonation of delay filed before the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, stands allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The appeal is restored to its file. The Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, is directed to hear the appeal on merits and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, however, within three months from the receipt of this {4} order. 7 Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly. S.S.SHINDE JUDGE adb/wp202311