bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9868 OF 2009 Madan Sundesha ..Petitioner Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import) & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.H.R.Shetty i/b. H.R.Shetty & Co. for petitioner. Mr.J.B.Mishra for respondents. CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & K.K.TATED,JJ. DATE : 6TH JANUARY,2010 P.C. 1. Heard. Perused petition. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 17th September, 2009. 3. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, in our considered view, petition is without substance for reasons recorded. Firstly, the petitioner can hardly be said to be an aggrieved person in view of the finding recorded in paragraph No.16 of the impugned order, wherein, no-objection for extension of time limit, given by Mr.H.R.Shetty appearing before the Tribunal has been recorded in categorical terms which the petitioner is not disputing. Secondly, from the record, it appears that the petition was ready in the month of September, 2009, it was affirmed in the month of October, 2009. It was filed in the month of November, 2009 against the impugned order wherein the period was extended by another six months. The petitioner consumed three months to file petition. As on date, impugned order is operating consuming period of four months. The petitioner was negligent in filing the petition. As observed, the substantial part of the order has already been operated. Nothing could be brought on record to show perversity in the impugned order. 4. In this view of the matter, the petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs. (K.K.TATED,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)