1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 3390/2010. Madhav Sakharam Kavar -: VERSUS :- State of Maharashtra and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 27, 2010. Heard finally by consent of Shri C.A. Joshi, learned Counsel for petitioner, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3, Shri A.P. Tathod, learned Counsel for respondent no.4 and Shri R.L. Khapre, learned Counsel for respondent no.5, by making Rule, returnable forthwith. The impugned order dated 11.05.2010 is passed by the Hon'ble Minister in Appeal No. 19/2008 in pursuance of the orders dated 15.02.2010 of this Court in Writ Petition No. 4995/2009. Shri Joshi, learned Counsel is assailing the rejection of his appeal on merits. Shri Khapre, learned 2 Counsel for respondent no.5 has pointed out that the appeal as filed, was barred by limitation and the Appellate Authority has not applied its mind and delay has not been condoned. According to him, the adjudication is therefore, not in accordance with the directions of this Court dated 15.02.2010. Learned A.G.P. has invited attention to certain observations in the impugned order made by the Hon'ble Minister to urge, that those observations show that the Hon'ble Minister was aware that the appeal was time barred and according to him, with this in mind, the appeal has been rejected on merits and therefore, it shows that the delay has been condoned. Shri Tathod, learned Counsel has pointed out that though the Hon'ble Minister has noted the relevant facts, the order upon it has not been passed. His argument is, unless and until the delay is condoned, the controversy could not have been looked into on merits. I do not find it necessary to go into the merits of the controversy. The appeal as filed is admittedly barred by limitation. The office of Hon'ble Minister has to first find out whether the delay in filing it has been adequately explained. Only after the delay is condoned, the appeal can be looked 3 into. Here the appeal has been rejected on merits without condoning the delay. The respondent no.5 has infact filed cross objection before this Court raising that challenge to the impugned order. In this situation, interest of justice can be met with by asking the office of the Hon'ble Minister to consider the application for condonation of delay and thereafter to consider the controversy involved in the appeal on merits. If the delay is condoned, then only the controversy can be looked into on merits. If the delay is not condoned, there is no question of taking up the appeal on merits. The parties to appear before the Hon'ble Minister on 13.10.2010 and the office of the Hon'ble Minister shall attempt to decide the same as early as possible and in any case by 31.01.2011. Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.