1 wp 2564.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2564 OF 2009 The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Kinwat, Dist. Nanded. .. Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Rabiabee Abdul Jabbar and others .. Respondents Shri P. V. Mandalik, Senior Counsil i/by Shri Amol Gandhi, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. M. Vibhute, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Shri Vivek Bhavthankar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 7. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3, 6, 8 and 9 are served. CORAM : S. S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 10TH MARCH, 2011. PER COURT : . This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.06.2008 passed by Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad in Case No. ROR/Revision/PT/127/2008 thereby rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay of 46 months. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to the pleadings in the petition 2 wp 2564.09 and grounds taken therein and submitted that if this petition is not allowed and delay is not condoned in that case interest of the public at large would be affected, since the petitioner herein is the Municipal Council, Kinwat. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the sufficient cause has been disclosed in this petition and by imposing reasonable cost the delay can be condoned and the prayer of the petitioner for condonation of delay can be entertained . 2. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the reported judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of N. Balakrishnan V. M. Krishnamurthy reported in AIR 1998 SC 3222 and submitted that, this Court may take liberal view. The length of delay is not material. The sufficient explanation offered in the application for condonation of delay matters. Therefore, relying on the said judgment the learned senior counsel would submit that this petition may be allowed. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents relying on the reasons recorded by the Additional Commissioner submitted that there is inordinate delay in filing the revision and, therefore, since there was no 3 wp 2564.09 sufficient cause which was disclosed in application, therefore, possible view has been taken by the authority. Therefore, this Court may not interfere in the impugned order. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that, this writ petition may be dismissed. 4. I have given due consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned senior counsel and also the respective counsel appearing for the respondents. The application which was filed for delay condonation in revision petition, the relevant paragraphs from the said application from para 2 to 6 reads thus : "2. In preferring the revision delay has been caused. The judgment was delivered on 14.03.2002 by the Additional Collector, Nanded. The petitioner obtained copy of judgment in month of September 2002. That the last day of filing of Appeal was 14.06.2002. There is a delay of filing of revision of 46 months and ___ days therefore this delay condonation application is filed herewith. 3. That delay caused in preferring revision is because of the procedure to be followed by the different offices of the Municipal Council before actual preferring an appeal and taking the policy decision to prefer an revision at different levels of the 4 wp 2564.09 competent authorities. 4. That after getting sanction from standing committee of the Municipal Council, Kinwat the then Chief Officer, of the petitioner council transferred to some another place. The present Chief Officer, was not aware about the facts of the matter and those remain without knowledge of the present Chief Officer of the petitioner Council. Therefore, after getting knowledge of the judgment and order of the Lower Appellate Court the petitioner - Chief Officer, traced out the papers and it reveals that there is delay of so many months for filing revision before this Hon'ble Court. 5. The petitioner states that for all the procedure to be followed the delay has been caused in preferring revision of 46 months and 14 days. The delay caused is not intentional. Cause is sufficient cause to condone the delay. 6. The petitioner is having strong case on merits. The judgment of Learned Lower Appellate Court may affect the interest of public at large therefore, in the interest of justice the delay caused may kindly be condoned and revision may please be registered." 5. Upon perusal of aforesaid paragraphs from the application which was filed before the Additional Commissioner at Aurangabad, in my opinion, to condone the inordinate delay of 46 months no sufficient cause has been shown. Therefore, the 5 wp 2564.09 Additional Commissioner taking into consideration pleadings and avernments in the application for condonation of delay from paragraph 2 to 6 found that no sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay of 46 months and there is no proper explanation. 6. From perusal of said application, I find that, the delay has not been properly explained. The explanation offered in the said application is general in nature. No material particulars have been pleaded so as to take the liberal view. The correctness of the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner on the application for condonation of delay is subject matter before this Court. Therefore, this Court has to consider whether the order passed by the Additional Commissioner on an application for condonation of delay is in-consonance with the material brought on record and whether the possible view has been taken. In my opinion, upon perusal of the pleadings in the application, the view taken by the Additional Commissioner is possible view. There is no sufficient cause shown in the application. Therefore the contention of the learned senior counsel that now in this petition sufficient cause has been shown cannot be countenanced. As stated earlier in this writ petition there is challenge to the 6 wp 2564.09 order passed by the Additional Commissioner and, therefore, it is not open for this Court to appreciate additional grounds taken for the first time in this writ petition which was not in the application for condonation of delay before the Additional Commissioner. The learned senior counsel is right in placing relying on the reported judgment in case of N. Balakrishnan V. M. Krishnamurthy cited supra. However, in the present case, the challenge is to the order passed by the Additional Commissioner and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances, what matters is explanation offered in the application for condonation of delay before the Additional Commissioner. Upon perusal of the contents of the said application, I do not find that sufficient cause was disclosed. In this view of the matter, I do not find any substance in this writ petition. Possible view has been taken by the authorities below. The petition is devoid of any merit and same stands dismissed. [S. S. SHINDE, J.] bsb/March. 11