IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4357 OF 2009 Suvarna G.C. ...Petitioner Vs. The President, Karnataka Yuvak Mithra Mandali & Ors. ... Respondents --- Mr.A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate with Mr. M.A Choudhari for Petitioner Mr. Sudarshaan Shinghrani for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 11TH JUNE, 2009 P.C. 1. By this petition, the Petitioner is challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 13.4.2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Mumbai, whereby he was pleased to reject the application filed by the Petitioner for condonation of delay of 30 days in filing the appeal and on the ground that sufficient cause has not been shown by the Petitioner and consequently dismissed her appeal and application for stay. 2. Brief facts are as under:- The Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Respondent School on 2.5.1982. Thereafter, she was appointed as headmistress of the school in June, 1986 and in 2002, she was elected as a treasurer of the managing committee and the change report was accepted by the Charity Commissioner. 3. It is the case of the Petitioner that one Mr.Sanjeevkumar Sadanandan and Sudhir Shetty started interfering in the affairs of the trust in the school and intended to take over the control of the school. Initially an FIR was lodged against the Petitioner, the President and the Secretary of the trust in April, 2006. Thereafter, in August, 2006 the said Sadanandan and his associate proposed to hold the meeting of the managing committee to dislodge the Petitioner. Under these circumstances, the Petitioner filed S.C. Suit No.3520 of 2006 in the City Civil Court, in which an interim stay was granted in favour of the Petitioner. In spite of the said stay order, one more meeting was held on 14.8.2006 and these two persons were illegally co-opted in the managing committee as vice president and secretary of the trust. The Petitioner again challenged the co-option by filing Suit No.5567 of 2006. Proceedings were also initiated in the Court of the Charity Commissioner against the order of co-option against these two persons which are still pending before the Charity Commissioner. 4. It is the case of the Petitioner that as a counter blast to the two suits filed by the Petitioner, twenty memos were issued to the Petitioner within a period of one month. Thereafter, the Petitioner was suspended on 27.4.2007. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a suit against the order of suspension in the City Civil Court. The Hon'ble City Civil Court by an order dated 4.2.2007 was pleased to stay the order of suspension, which was again challenged by the management by filing A.O. No.593 of 2007 which was admitted and stay to the order of suspension was continued. An enquiry was initiated against the present Petitioner and, thereafter, on 24.4.2008, services of the Petitioner were terminated, which was communicated to the Petitioner on 26.7.2008. Immediately within three days, the Petitioner made a detailed representation to the Deputy Director of Education. Thereafter, on 1.8.2008, a representation was also made by the Assistant Secretary of the trust to the Deputy Director of Education pointing out the illegal termination of the Petitioner and finally on 16.9.2008, an appeal was filed by the Petitioner under section 9 of M.E.P.S. Act before the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal,Mumbai along with an application for condonation of delay and stay. In the application for condonation of delay, it was stated that she had made representations to the Education Officer, North Zone, Greater Bombay and Deputy Director of Education, Greater Bombay and had made attempts to get the order of termination cancelled. She further stated that she also informed the Charity Commissioner, Worli, Mumbai that the office bearers of the trust and the managing committee were illegally appointed. However, after the Education Officer informed her that the Petitioner should approach the School Tribunal by filing an appeal against the order of termination, she had preferred the appeal and for these reasons, delay was caused of 30 days in filing the appeal. She, therefore, prayed that the delay be condoned and the appeal should be heard on merits. The Respondents vehemently opposed the application for condonation of delay. It was urged that sufficient cause has not been shown by the Petitioner for condonation of delay. It is also alleged that there was suppression of material facts. Reliance was placed on the various judgments of the High Court and the Apex Court. The Petitioner also relied on the number of judgments of the Apex Court. The Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, however, came to the conclusion that sufficient cause has not been shown by the Petitioner for condonation of delay of 30 days. Being aggrieved by the said order,the Petitioner has filed this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Shri A.Y. Sakhare, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has invited my attention to the impugned order and submitted that the Tribunal had not applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. He submitted that the Petitioner had made attempts to get the order of termination quashed by approaching the Education Officer and the Deputy Director of Education and also the Charity Commissioner, and having failed in her attempts, thereafter she had filed an appeal under section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act. He submitted that therefore, the Petitioner had not slept over her rights but had made attempts to get the order of termination cancelled. He submitted that the Apex Court and this Court had in umpteen cases held that the Court while exercising its discretion in condoning the delay has to see whether sufficient cause and explanation has been given by the party for condoning the delay. He submitted that the delay was not inordinate and the Petitioner had promptly approached the Tribunal after she had failed in getting the order of termination quashed. 6. On the other hand, the leaned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents vehemently opposed the said submission made by the Petitioner's Counsel. He relied on the following judgments of the Hon'ble High Court and the Apex Court in support of his submission. 1. N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123. 2. Mathuradas Mohota College of Science, Nagpur vs. R.T. Borkar & Ors. reported in MEC 943 3. Binod Bihari Singh vs. Union of India reported in (1993) 1 SCC 572 4. P.K. Ramchandran Vs. State of Kerala and another reported in AIR 1998 SC 2276 5. Executive President, Pune Vidyarthi Griha, Pune and Others Vs. Bhaskar Bhagwant Yadav and Others reported in MEC 1700 6. Chiranji Lal (D) by Lrs. vs. Hari Das (D) By Lrs. reported in 2005 DGLS 439 7. Mahavira Trading Company & Ors. Vs. Smt. Nayan N. Teli & Ors. reported in 1999(4) ALL MR 57 8. Shri Albino D'Souza vs. Mhalpa Manuesh Nagvekar & Anr. reported in 1998(3) ALL MR 401. 9. Temple of Maruti vs. Balkrishna Suryaji S. Kakodkar & Anr. Reported in 1998(3) ALL MR 403 10. Kalpaa d/o Deorao Lenze vs. Gurudeo Krushanashram Dharmik Trust Navegaon Bandh and others reported in 2207 (3) Mh.L.J. 486 11. Pune Municipal Corporation vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2207(5) ALL MR 425 12. Smt. Bina Manohar Dudani & Anr. vs. Major Charanjitlal Verma (Retd) & Ors. reported in 2007(5) ALL MR 381 He submitted that, therefore, no case was made out by the Petitioner for interfering with the order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal and submitted that the petition should be dismissed. 7. In my view, the School Tribunal has not taken into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. In the present case, it is apparent that there are two groups in the school management who are trying to oust each other from the managing committee and an attempt is made to take control of the trust. It is not disputed that at one time the Petitioner was the member of the managing committee and a change report was accepted by the Charity Commissioner. Some attempts were made by the members of the other group to oust the Petitioner from the managing committee and as a result, the Petitioner had to approach the City Civil Court by filing a suit. Another suit was filed by the Petitioner, challenging the co-option of Mr.Sanjeevkumar Sadanandan and Sudhir Shetty in the managing committee. Thereafter, the Petitioner was suspended by the managing committee which order was again challenged by filing a suit in the City Civil Court. Complaint was also filed by the Petitioner before the Education Officer and the Deputy Director of Education and the Charity Commissioner. Under these circumstances, therefore, the Petitioner had after her services were terminated and order of termination was communicated to her on 26.7.2008 promptly approached the Education Officer on 30.7.2008. She also approached the Charity Commissioner since certain proceedings were also pending before the Charity Commissioner in respect of the selection of the new managing committee. Under these circumstances, in my view, it cannot be said that the Petitioner had slpet over her rights and/or refused to take any steps after the order of termination was served on her. In the past also, she was diligently and promptly filed suits and appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum. It is possible that the Petitioner may have thought that the Education Officer or the Charity Commissioner would be in a position to persuade the management to withdraw the order of termination and before instituting legal proceedings, an attempt was made by her to get the order of termination cancelled. Under these circumstances,I am of the view that the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, therefore, ought to have considered the case in its totality and ought to have condoned the delay of 30 days in filing the appeal under section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act. There cannot be a dispute about the ratio of the judgments on which reliance is placed by the Learned Counsel for the Respondents. In the present case, there is a dispute between the Petitioner and the certain members of the managing committee who have taken every conceivable steps for removing the Petitioner from the affairs of the trust and the school. The Petitioner has diligently pursued her legal remedies before the various forums. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the letter written by the Petitioner to the Charity Commissioner or to the Education Officer, or to the Deputy Director of Education was a futile exercise. The Tribunal, therefore, in my view, has committed an error of law which is apparent on the face of record. The Tribunal, after relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of P.K. Ramchandran vs. State of Kerala & Ors. reported in AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2276, has held that no explanation has been given by the Petitioner for the delay caused in filing the appeal. The Tribunal has further erred in holding that sufficient cause has not been shown by the Petitioner and these findings are patently perverse. The Petitioner in her application for condonation of delay had pointed out that she had written two letters to the Deputy Director of Education and the Charity Commissioner and had made an attempt to get the order of termination quashed. However, after she was informed by the said authority that it had no jurisdiction to quash the order of termination and had asked her to file an appeal under section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act, she had filed the said appeal. Both these observations made by the learned Presiding Officer are patently illegal. 8. Under these Circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Mumbai, is set aside. Delay of 30 days caused in filing the appeal is condoned. The Presiding Officer, School Tribunal shall decide the appeal on merits and in accordance with law and also shall decide the application for stay expeditiously. There shall be no orders as to costs. V.M. KANADE J.