1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.391 OF 2009 Nanuram Mohanlal Varma ..vs.. Deputy Charity Commissioner & 4 others =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Shri A.M. Ghare, advocate for appellant Shri Anand Deshpande, AGP for respondent no.1 & 5 Shri A.P.Thakre, advocate for respondent no.2 Shri A.S. Mardikar, advocate for respondent no.4 C ORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK,J. DATED : 29th MARCH, 2010. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By this appeal, the appellant challenges the order passed by the District Judge, Nagpur 29.9.2009 rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing the application under section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act challenging the order passed by the Deputy Charity Commissioner under section 50-A of the Act, whereby a scheme was framed and the area of operation of the Vidarbha Kabaddi Association was extended from 8 to 11 districts. 2 It is not in dispute that the order was passed by the Deputy Charity Commissioner under section 50-A of the Bombay Public Trust Act on 12.9.2007. It appears that there is inordinate delay in filing the application under section 72 of the Act along with the application for condonation of delay. The Miscellaneous Civil Application was filed on 12.3.2009. The learned District Judge has observed that there is a delay of more than 483 days in filing the application. The appellant has merely stated in the application for condonation of delay in filing the application that he was not able to file the application under section 72 of the Act within the prescribed period of limitation as he had applied for certain documents under the Right to Information act and that three Change Report Proceedings were pending at the relevant time. The learned District Judge has rightly held that the reasons stated by the applicant in the application for condonation of delay did not show any sufficient cause for belatedly filing the application under section 72of the Act, after more than 483 days from the date of order passed by the Deputy Charity Commissioner on 12.9.2007. The Learned District Judge observed that the appellant very well knew about the order dated 12.9.2007 as he had immediately applied for certified copy of the order on 13.9.2007. The reasons stated in the application for 3 condonation of delay were unacceptable for condonation of the huge delay of more than 483 days in filing the application under section 72 of the Act. The appellant has merely stated the grounds on which the appellant desired to challenge the order dated 12.9.2007 in the application for condonation of delay, but that would pertain to the merits of the matter. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the District Judge on 29.9.2009 and the findings recorded by District Judge on the issue of condonation of delay do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. On oral request made by learned counsel for the appellant, the ad-interim relief granted by this court on 9.10.2009 to continue for a period of 4 weeks only and would stand automatically vacated on the expiry of that term. JUDGE SMP