(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 133 OF 2011 Shri Tirupati Educational and Rural Development Foundation, Ramnagar Wadi Bhokar Road, Deopur, Dhule, Through its President, Dr. V.S. Patil. .. Petitioner. versus 1. National Council of Teachers Education, Hans Bhawan, Wing II-1, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110 002, Through its Registrar. 2. The National Council of Teachers Education, Western Regional Committee, Manas Bhavan, Shamla Hills, Bhopal (M.P.) 462 002, Through its Regional Director. .. Respondents. ....................... (2) Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Bora, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 and 2. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 11TH JANUARY 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties. 2. Mr. V.D. Hon, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, states that too technical approach has been taken in the matter of condonation of delay. He states that the petitioner has invested amount of about Rs. 2.5 Crores in raising infrastructure and against the order of the National Council of Teachers Education (Respondent no.2), the petitioner had approached this Court directly. The petition was disposed of in view of alternate remedy available. The said remedy was then taken recourse to, but as there was death of mother of the President of the petitioner / Institution, as also, serious illness of his relative, immediately matter could not be filed. The learned Counsel appearing for the (3) petitioner states that there are no mala fides and hence delay deserves to be condoned. He has invited my attention to some other orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court, in somewhat identical circumstances. 3. Mr. S.S. Bora, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, states that here, the finding is not on delay after this Court permitted the petitioner to take recourse to alternate remedy. He states that the order dated 3-7-2009, passed by the respondent no.1, was assailed after 9 months and 4 days i.e. on 26-4-2010 in Writ Petition and that delay has not been explained. 4. After hearing the learned Counsel for the respective parties, I find that the petitioner was always attempting to raise its grievance and in the process, it also approached this Court. It is, no doubt, true that there is some delay in approaching this Court. But then, this Court has observed that the petitioner has alternate remedy available to it and permitted it to take recourse to it. In the earlier matters, this Court has imposed some costs and condoned delay. 5. Looking to the infrastructure of which provision is allegedly made by the petitioner, I am inclined to condone the delay in this matter also, and the same shall be subject to (4) payment of costs. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed. (i) The impugned order dated 19-11-2010, passed by the Vice- Chairperson of the National Council for Teachers Education, New Delhi, in Appeal No. F-89-630/2010-Appeal, is quashed and set aside. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. However, the same shall be subject to payment of costs which are quantified at Rs. 21,000/- [Rupees Twenty One Thousand], to be payable by the petitioner, to the Library of Advocates' Association at this Bench, by 31st January 2011. (ii) If the costs, as aforesaid, are paid by the petitioner and receipt thereof is produced before the respondent no.1, the respondent no.1 shall register the appeal of the petitioner and decide the same in accordance with law and on its own merits. 7. Rule is made absolute accordingly. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp133