1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 923/2009 (Dinesh B. Dhage Vs. Addl. Commr. Amravati & ors.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. I.S. Charlewar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.B. Patel, A.G.P. For respondent nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JUNE 18 , 2009 . By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner under the provisions of Section 16(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, on the ground that the same was barred by limitation. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and also perused the impugned order dated 6/12/2008. It appears that the order was passed by the Additional Collector on 7/11/2008. The petitioner ought to have filed an appeal against the same before the Additional Commissioner within a period of 15 days. However, the said appeal was filed on 3/12/2008. Since there was no provision in the Act of 1958 for condonation of delay, the Additional Commissioner rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. The order passed by the Additional Commissioner is just and proper and calls for no 2 interference in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP