1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Civil Application No. 1961/2008 in LPA St. No. 3934/2008 in Writ Petition No. 3164/1994 Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society, Amravati and another vs. Presiding Officer, College Tribunal for Amravati University at Nagpur and another. ----------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Notes, Office Memorandam of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : A.P.Lavande & P.D.Kode,JJ DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 02.03.2009 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER: 06.03.2009 Heard Mr. S.G. Jagtap, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. N.R. Saboo, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 2. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 417 days in filing letters patent appeal against the order dated 13.12.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition No. 3164/94 filed by the applicants. The applicants filed the above writ petition challenging the order passed by the College Tribunal directing reinstatement of respondent no.2 with continuity in service by Judgment and order dated 13th December, 2006. The applicants have preferred appeal on 4.3.2008 along with the application for condonation of delay in filing appeal. The grounds taken in the application are that the appellants were not aware about the order passed by the learned Single Judge and appellant no.1 came to know 2` about the impugned Judgment and order when notice of contempt proceedings initiated by the respondent no.2 was served on applicant no. 1 on 20.12.2007. In so far as the applicant no.2 is concerned, there is no dispute that soon after passing of the order the applicant no.2 reinstated the respondent no.2 on 4.1.2007. 3. Mr. Jagtap, the learned counsel for the applicants submitted that since the applicant no.1 was not aware of the impugned Judgment and order till the notice in Contempt Proceedings was served on applicant no.1 on 20.12.2007, the delay in filing appeal deserves to be condoned. According to Mr. Jagtap, after notice was served on applicant no.1 some time was taken in collecting the papers and thereafter the appeal was filed on 4.3.2008 along with the application for condonation of delay. 4. The application has been opposed on behalf of the respondent no.2 by filing reply. Along with the reply filed, respondent no.2 has produced communication dated 4.1.2007 addressed by the applicant no.2 to respondent no.2 in which it has been stated that pursuant to the directions given by the Management the respondent no.2 should join his duty on 29.1.2007. This communication was addressed in reply to the letter sent by respondent no.2 to the applicant no.2 inviting his attention to the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition 3` No. 3164/1994. 5. Mr. Saboo for respondent no.2 placing reliance upon the communication dated 4.1.2007 addressed by respondent no.2 submitted that the said communication clearly discloses that the Management was aware of the order passed by the learned Single Judge prior to 4.1.2007 and, therefore, the reasons given by the applicant for condonation of delay is false. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicants and respondent no.2 and having perused the record we are of the considered opinion that no case has been made out by the applicants to condone the delay. No doubt the term “sufficient cause” has to be liberally construed as has been held by the Apex Court. However, the fact remains that when a party seeks condonation of delay on the grounds which are not true such a party is not entitled to condonation of delay. The power to condone delay is discrectionary and the parties seeking condonation of delay must approach the court with correct facts and clean hands. In view of the communication dated 4.1.2007 addressed by the applicant no.2 to respondent no.2, we find it difficult to believe the version of the applicants that the applicant no.1 was not aware about the orders passed by the learned Single Judge till the notice of contempt was served on applicant no.1 on 20.12.2007. In our considered 4` opinion, the applicants have not approached this court with clean hands but on the contrary the case set up by the applicants is belied by the communication dated 4.1.2007. Moreover, the applicant no.2 was very much aware that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in January 2007 and no cause has been shown by the applicant no.2 to file appeal in March, 2008. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, we find no ground to condone the delay. Accordingly, the application is dismissed with costs of Rs. 1500/- in favour of the respondent no.2. Letters Patent Appeal Stamp No.3934/2008: In view of the dismissal of the Civil Application No. 1961/08, the appeal is also rejected. JUDGE JUDGE patle 5`