- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.6197 OF 2004 Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar for the Petitioner. Mr.Avikkal Raje for Respondents Nos. 1 & 2. Mr.Susheel Mahadeshwar for Respondent No.3. ----------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court’s or Judge’s appearances, Court’s orders order or directions ----------------------------------------------------- ¦ ¦ ¦ CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, J. ¦ DATED: 13TH APRIL,2005 P.C.: Delay of 57 days has not been condoned by the College Tribunal by finding that the explanation that was given by the Petitioner for the delay is false. The Petitioner’s explanation for the delay was that he had gone to the Grievance Committee against the order terminating his services and therefore he could not approach the College Tribunal immediately. The College Tribunal has found as a fact that before the Grievance Committee - 2 - the Petitioner never made any grievance about his termination. Surely, once the tribunal found that the Petitioner has given a false reason for approaching the tribunal late, the tribunal could not have condoned the delay. I do not find any error in the order of the College Tribunal. Petition is, therefore, rejected. ...