-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2292 OF 2008 Kiran Vasant Sonawane ... Petitioner versus Vividha Vikas Sanghatana and others ...Respondents Mr. Nitin Mulye for the petitioner. Mr. R.M. Hariani, instructed by Mr. P.N. Joshi, for respondent No.1. Mr. Prakash Patil, instructed by M/s. J. Shekhar & Co., for respondent No.4. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR, J. DATE: AUGUST 05, 2008. P.C. At the time of issuance of notice, this Court has ordered on 3rd April, 2008 that the petition may be heard and finally disposed of at the state of admission. All the respondents are served. The matter is heard today. 2. By filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nashik, dated 18th December, 2007 in Appeal No. 7 of 2007 by which the Tribunal has rejected the application of the petitioner for condonation of delay. 3. The petitioner is the original appellant before the Tribunal. By filing the appeal, he has challenged the so-called termination of his services -2- in July, 2005. The petitioner preferred the appeal after about 19 months of his termination. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that he was appointed by way of compassionate appointment for which he has relied upon the order of the management dated 4th October, 2003 at page 32 of the petition, by which the management had asked the petitioner to remain present on 10th October, 2003 in the morning at 7.00 a.m. as his prayer for compassionate appointment is accepted. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter he had continued upto July, 2005 but thereafter his services have been terminated orally. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter he has made representation to the management and ultimately after about 19 months, the petitioner has approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal has rejected the application for condonation of delay which order is impugned in this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Tribunal should have taken liberal approach in condoning the delay. He is ready to pay reasonable cost to other w side as according to him the matter is required to be heard on merits as the petitioner was appointed by way of compassionate appointment. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that no grounds have been mentioned by the petitioner in his application for condonation of delay. He has further submitted that the petitioner also gave notice through his advocate in the year 2005 but -3- thereafter also he had not immediately approached the Tribunal and, therefore, since no grounds have been mentioned in the application for condonation of inordinate delay, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing in the matter. I have also heard the learned advocate appearing for respondent No.4. It is required to be noted that the finding of the Tribunal in connection with the condonation of delay is very cryptic. The Tribunal has not given detailed reasons for coming to the conclusion that whether the delay has been satisfactorily explained nor not. The Tribunal has dealt with the arguments in paragraphs 1 and 2 but the reasoning is given only in paragraph 3 by which detailed submissions of both the sides have not been taken into account. Considering the said aspect, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that instead of deciding the question, this Court may remit the matter to the Tribunal asking the Tribunal to decide the application for condonation of delay de novo. Since the Tribunal has not given detailed reasons, it would be just and proper to send the matter for fresh consideration on the question of condonation of delay. The impugned order is accordingly set aside the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for considering the application for condonation of delay afresh. It will be open to both sides to place additional material in connection with the dispute in -4- question. After considering the plea on record, the Tribunal may decide the application de novo and pass detailed order in that behalf. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for de novo hearing. 6. Petition is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.