1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA Writ Petition No.252 of 2011 Mr. Marto Dias, Resident of House no.843, Patxea Bhatt, Cortalim-Goa. …. Petitioner v e r s u s 1. The Sarpanch/Secretary Village Panchayat Cortalim, Cortalim Goa. 2. Mrs. Robertina D'Souza, R/o House No.841/1, Patxea Bhatt, Cortalim-Goa. … Respondents Mr. J. Godinho, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs. L. Linhares, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent no.1. Mr. V.P. Thali, Advocate for Respondent no.2. Coram: A. P. Lavaande, J. Date: 18th July, 2011. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard Mr. Godinho, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent no.1 and Mr. Thali, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 2. Rule. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties heard forthwith. 3. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges order dated 20/4/2011 passed by the Additional District Judge II, Margao in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.11/2011 by which application seeking condonation of delay of 36 days in filing revision application before the Ad hoc District Judge, Margao has been dismissed. 4. The petitioner herein filed writ petition 3 no.788/2010 challenging the judgment and order dated 21/10/2010 passed by the Additional Director of Panchayats-I, Panaji. Interim order was passed by this Court on 6/12/2010 and notice was made returnable on 17/1/2011. On 17/1/2011, the petitioner sought to withdraw the petition on the ground that alternative remedy under Section 201 B of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act was available to the petitioner and consequently the petition was allowed to be withdrawn. Thereafter, the revision application along with application for condonation of delay of 36 days in filing the revision application was filed on 21/1/2011 before the Revisional Court. The Revisional Court dismissed the application on the ground that no sufficient cause was made out for condoning the delay. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents, I 4 am of the considered opinion that the order dated 20/4/2011 deserves to be quashed and set aside. Record clearly discloses that the petitioner filed writ petition no.788/2010 upon advise of his advocate Mr. J. Godinho on 1/12/2010 and it was only on 17/1/2011 when it was pointed that alternative remedy was available to the petitioner, the petitioner sought leave to withdraw the petition and the petition was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file revision application before the District Judge. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner was acting on the advise of his advocate which resulted in delay of 36 days in filing the revision application. Thus, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer because of the wrong advice given by his advocate. Hence, the petitioner has made out sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Revisional Court is unsustainable in law. 5 6. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 20/4/2011 is quashed and set aside and the delay of 36 days in filing the revision application is condoned subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs.750/- (Rupees seven hundred fifty only) each to respondent nos.1 and 2 within a period of two weeks. On payment of costs, the Revisional Court shall dispose of the revision application filed under Section 201 B of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act in accordance with law. The parties to appear before the Revisional Court on 4th August, 2011 at 10.am. 7. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. 8. The petition stands disposed of. . A. P. Lavande, J. Ap/-