IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1795/2008 IN REJ. S.A. 41/08 Vaikuntrao Deshmukh & ors ..vs.. Jt. Charity Commissioner & 5 ================================================== CORAM: S.R. DONGAONKAR, J. DATE: 16.7.2008 Heard Mr. Sardar, Advocate for the applicants. By this application, applicants are claiming certificate of leave to approach the Division Bench of this Court by filing the L.P.A. under clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The contentions of the learned counsel in application perused. The order against which the applicants are seeking leave is order of this court dated 21.1.2008 in C.A.8770/2007 in S.A. St. 16951/07. The applicants/ appellants had claimed condonation of delay in preferring the second appeal. The matter was in relation to election in a public trust. The second appeal was sought to be preferred under section 72(4) of the Bombay Public Trust Act. While filing that appeal, there was delay and as such the applicants had moved an application for condonation of delay. That application was rejected. One of the grounds for rejection was that the applicants have not approached the court with clean hands. The final order reads thus: “In the circumstances, I am not inclined to condone the delay. The application is thus rejected, with the result the Second Appeal sought to be filed is also rejected.” Learned counsel has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in AIR 1996 SC 1184 – Naranbhai Dayabhai Patel & another ..vs.. Suleman Isubji Dadabhai, wherein in paragraph 5 it has been observed: “5-Leave of the learned Single Judge was admittedly not obtained for filing the appeal. Consequently, since the appeal of the learned Single Judge arises under the Act by virtue of the statutory conferment of supervisory jurisdiction, by operation of earlier part of clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act would vest in him. The Letters Patent Appeal would not lie to the Division Bench unless the certificate of the learned Single Judge has been granted for leave to appeal. In that view, the appeal to the Division Bench was incompetent and is accordingly set aside.” The learned counsel has also relied on the judgment of this court reported in 1998(2) Mh.L.J. 312 – Vijay Kumar Baburao shete ..vs.. Mallikarjunappa Sindramappa Bidwe & others. In view of the decision of this court in 1998(2) Mh.l.J. 312, it is obvious that the L.P.A.; in absence of “leave” in such matters is not maintainable. The question would be whether such leave can be granted. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that this court while considering the C.A. 8770/2007 has not considered the medical certificate showing the illness of the applicants therein. However, on that ground alone, the leave contemplated under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, in my opinion, cannot be granted. If at all it was so, it might have been a ground for review. It is further necessary to note that while passing the order dated 21.1.2008, this court has categorically found that the applicants have not approached the court with clean hands. This is an additional ground on which this application for grant of leave can not be accepted. As such thes application is rejected. Leave refused. JUDGE smp.