1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.2078/2010 Sanjeevani Shikshan Sanstha Vs. Machindra N. Shingade and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. U. S. Dastane, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R. A. Haq, Advocate for respondent no.1 Mr. B. G. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent no.2. Mr. Kankale, A.G.P. for respondents 3 and 4. CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE :25TH AUGUST, 2010. 1] Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2] Contention of Advocate Dastane is that the College Tribunal while rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for framing preliminary issue has decided the proposed issue on merits. He has invited attention to order passed by predecessor of College Tribunal on 6.2.2008 to state that at this stage it was expressed that without recording of evidence, the issue could not be looked into. Hence, after recording of evidence was over, the issue was requested to be framed by moving separate application. 2 3] Advocate Haq states that the grievance of denial of opportunity on merits of issue, as sought is not incorporated in the petition as filed originally but it was added by amendment. He further states that the order impugned in this petition i. e. 21.4.2010 needs to be viewed in the background of the order dated 6.2.2008. According to him, from it, it is apparent that the matter was being considered only for the purpose of objection raised and condonation of delay. Hence, the application as moved again was unnecessary. He contends that both sides have in the process, advanced arguments even on merits or prayer for condonation of delay and after impugned order is pronounced on 21.4.2010, the petitioner sought leave to file written notes of arguments on merits of the appeal and that was granted. He, therefore, contends that present petition and grievance is unsustainable and misconceived. He further states that by the impugned order, the College Tribunal has rightly found that the appeal as filed is within the period of limitation. 3 4] With the assistance of both counsel, I have perused the order dated 24.2.2010. The Tribunal has found that the appeal as filed is within a period of limitation and in last but one paragraph of the order, has also considered the grievance of the petitioner in the alternative and noted that delay in filing appeal would in that event be only to 9-10 days and in the facts and circumstances before it the said delay could not have been refused to be condoned. 5] In view of this application of mind, it has found that no preliminary issue needed to be framed. It has also referred to cross-examine of postman examined before it on the point of service of termination order upon respondent no.1. 6] The facts show that after this order was passed on 21.4.2010 the petitioner sought time to place the written notes of arguments on record. It is after the Tribunal has also directed that the appeal has to proceed further. In this situation, I am not inclined to go into 4 merits of arguments being raised before this Court as the petitioner has accepted to proceed further in the matter. Hence, the petitioner shall file written notes of arguments before the College Tribunal. However, in the circumstances he is given liberty to challenge the order dated 21.4.2010 after the appeal is decided by the College Tribunal, if so warranted. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. JUDGE Ambulkar.