1 wp 3501.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3501 OF 2011 1. Santosh S/o Appasaheb Bhosale, Age : 22 Years, Occu. : Education, R/o Vita, Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani. 2. Appa S/o Yashwanta Bhosale, Age : 57 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Vita, Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani. 3. Sow. Ramanbai W/o Appasaheb Bhosale, Age : 47 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o Vita, Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani. .. Petitioners Versus Bhagwat S/o Yeshwantrao Bhosale, Age : 55 Years, Occu. : Agril. & Service, R/o Vita, Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani. Now at Present Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani. .. Respondent Shri B. A. Shinde, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri A. A. Mukhedkar, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 20TH JUNE, 2011. 2 wp 3501.11 ORAL JUDGMENT : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The present respondent had filed an appeal purportedly U/Sec. 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. There was delay in filing the said appeal. As such, the present respondent filed an application for condonation of delay. The Sub Divisional Officer, Parbhani allowed the said application vide order dated 02.08.2010. The said order is assailed in the present writ petition. 3. Shri Shinde, the learned counsel for petitioners submits that no notice was issued to them about the hearing of the said application for condonation of delay. There was delay of almost 12 years and the Sub Divisional Officer without assigning any reason has condoned the same. 4. Shri Mukhedkar, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that notices were issued to petitioner, but they remained absent. As such, the Sub Divisional Officer proceeded and on hearing present respondent the delay was condoned. Such 3 wp 3501.11 application for condonation of delay have to be liberally construed. 5. No doubt, the application for condonation of delay has to be liberally construed. But the authority dealing with an application for condonation of delay has to give reasons for condonation of delay. The reasons are the lifeline of quasi- judicial order. They depict the application of mind on the part of the authority dealing with the application. In the present matter on perusal of the order it is found that absolutely no reasons are given by the Sub Divisional Officer. Only in one line the Sub Divisional Officer has condoned the delay i. e. "Delay is condoned". Absolutely no reasons are given as to whether he is satisfied for the cause shown. 6. In the light of the above, the impugned order dated 02.08.2010 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Parbhani is quashed and set aside. The Sub Divisional Officer shall decide the application for condonation of delay filed by the present respondent afresh after giving an opportunity to the parties to put forth their case. The parties shall appear before the Sub Divisional Officer, Parbhani on 11th July, 2011. The writ petition 4 wp 3501.11 is accordingly allowed with no costs. The Rule is made absolute in above terms. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/June 11