AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.296 OF 2009 M.V. Godbole & 8 Ors. ... Petitioners Vs. The Additional Chief Secretary (Personnel) to the Government in the General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32 & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. K.K. Malpathak for the petitioners. Mr. A.K. Jalisatgi for respondents 1 to 3. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED : 24TH NOVEMBER, 2009. P.C.:- 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing forthwith. 2. The petitioners are working in various Departments of the State of Maharashtra. The petitioners challenged AJN 2 the provisional seniority list dated 2/2/2001 by filing Original Application No.243 of 2005 in the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai (for short, “the MAT”). During the pendency of the said original application, final seniority list dated 14/12/2005 was published. The petitioners, therefore, made an application to the MAT praying that they may be permitted to withdraw the original application and challenge the final seniority list. On 25/4/2006 the MAT gave permission to the petitioners to withdraw the original application with liberty to file fresh application challenging the final seniority list dated 14/12/2005. Pursuant to the liberty granted by the MAT, the petitioners filed fresh original application on 22/3/2007. By impugned order dated 15/4/2008, the MAT rejected the original application on the ground that it is barred by limitation. The said order is challenged in this petition. 3. We have heard, at some length, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.P. for the State. Learned AJN 3 counsel for the petitioners submitted that the permission to withdraw the original application and file a fresh application was granted to the petitioner on 25/4/2006. The limitation, therefore, starts running from that day. He submitted that therefore the original application filed on 22/3/2007 is well within the limitation. Learned counsel submitted that in any case, the petitioners were seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2002 (for short, “the RTI Act”) and time was spent on obtaining information. Therefore, assuming there is delay of 97 days, that delay has been properly explained. He submitted that in the circumstances, the impugned order be set aside. 4. Learned A.G.P. on the other hand, submitted that the impugned order is well reasoned and merits no interference from this court. 5. In our opinion, even if it is held that the limitation period would not start running from 25/4/2006 when the AJN 4 MAT gave permission to the petitioners to withdraw the earlier original application with liberty to file fresh original application and that the limitation starts running from 14/12/2005 i.e. the date on which the final seniority list was published, we feel that the delay in filing the original application comes to about 97 days and it has been properly explained by the petitioners. 6. We have perused Misc. Application No.275 of 2007 filed by the petitioners praying for condonation of delay. Paragraphs 3 and 4 thereof read thus: “3. The Applicants state that they had initially objected on several occasions by writing to the Respondent No.2 as regards the provisional seniority list of Assistants. The last such letter was sent on 11.6.04. However, disregarding these objections the Respondents finalized the seniority list on 14.12.05. Thereafter, Application were made to individual departments under the Right to Information Act calling for information from various departments in respect of the ratio of the direct recruits, promotees and limited departmental examinees. Reply in that regard were obtained between mid November and mid December, 2006. In view of the unsatisfactory replies received, the Applicants AJN 5 decided to file Original Application impugning the final seniority list. The Applicants then jointly conferred and approached this Hon'ble Tribunal by filing the present O.A. in the month of March, 2007. 4. In the aforesaid circumstances the proceedings have been filed after about 97 days from the prescribed period of limitation of 1 year. However, in view of the fact that the earlier Application i.e. O.A. 243/2005 was withdrawn on 25.4.06 with liberty to file fresh Original Application and further, the fact that the Applicants had tried to ascertain the ratio of various streams in the said post of Assistants, the delay deserves to be condoned and the Original Application deserves to be heard on merit. The Applicant hence submit that the delay may be condoned for the aforesaid reason and in the interest of justice.” 7. In our opinion, the petitioners have given acceptable explanation for delay. We feel that interest of justice would be served if the impugned order is set aside and the delay is condoned on the condition that the petitioners pay costs quantified at Rs.5,000/- to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority. Hence, we pass the following order. 8. The impugned order dated 15/4/2008 is set aside and AJN 6 the delay of 97 days is condoned on the condition that the petitioners pay costs quantified at Rs.5,000/- to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority, within four weeks from today. The petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.]