1 wp9353-10.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9353 OF 2010 Maratha Yuvak Mandal and Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Vitthal Tukaram Chobe and Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Surel Shah for petitioners Mr.I.M.Khairdi for respondent No.12 CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 5th September 2011. P.C.: 1] The petitioners are aggrieved and dis-satisfied with an order passed by the Presiding officer, School Tribunal, Solapur dated 25th October 2010 rejecting an application made by original respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 5 requesting that their written statements/ say to the appeal be taken on record. 2] It is the finding of the learned Presiding Officer that there is 2 wp9353-10.doc inordinate delay in filing the application and also the say. The parties have appeared on number of occasions before the court of law. Now, if the reason of delay is that respondent No.5 was unwell, medical certificate should have been placed on record. 3] To my mind, the appeal was filed in the year 2009. The impugned order has been passed on 25th October 2010. The application made by the original respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 5 which includes the management, was supported by documents evidencing illness of respondent No.5, who is stated to be of 80 years of age. In such circumstances and when the Teacher is awaiting the adjudication of an appeal and that the request is not opposed seriously by him but by a faction in the management, the application should have been granted. This is really taking a hyper technical view of the procedural matters. The Tribunal ought to be aware that such applications should be decided on the touchstone that the main matters are not unnecessarily delayed. If the delay is not on account of any negligence or lack of bonafides then, liberal principles should be applied and by imposing costs, such an application could be allowed so that the adjudication on the main 3 wp9353-10.doc matter is not postponed. 4] In these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. Needless to state that not only the say of the petitioners who are original respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 5 but the say of respondent No. 12 Tanaji Jadhav shall be treated as version of the management and the Tribunal will then decide the matter on the basis that the management is opposing reinstatement in the service of respondent No.1 teacher or grant of any relief to him. All contentions of parties in that behalf are kept open. Petition is disposed of accordingly. Since the first respondent teacher is not present on service being effected, there will be no order as to costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)