1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 3906/2006 (Dnyamrao Keshavrao Thawale VERSUS The Maharashtra State Cooperative Cotton Growers Marketing Federation Ltd. thro its Managing Director ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Mr. S.K. Tambde, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. C.V. Kale, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : D.D.SINHA AND SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATE : APRIL 2, 2008. Heard. The petitioner in the petition was dismissed from service as Junior Grader vide order dated 26.07.1994 passed by the Executive Director of Maharashtra State Cooperative Cotton Growers Marketing Federation Limited. The counsel for the petitioner claims that the petitioner filed an appeal within 30 days before the Staff Committee in the year 1994 itself. It is further contended that since the appeal was not decided by the Staff Committee, the petitioner, on the earlier occasion, filed a Writ Petition No.5091/2004 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 01.11.2004 and in the said order, the statement of counsel for the 2 respondent is reflected, which reads thus----- “Mr. Kale, the learned counsel for the respondent, states that by this time, the Appellate Authority might have disposed of the appeal on its own merits. He, however, states that if the said appeal is not yet disposed of, the Appellate Authority would dispose it of as early as possible on its own merits and according to law.” It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of the statement made by the counsel for the respondent in the said petition, the writ petition was disposed of. It is contended that pursuant to the said order, the respondent passed the impugned order dated 06.02.2006/17.02.2006, whereby, the appeal of the petitioner came to be rejected as hopelessly barred by limitation. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contended that in the circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable. Mr. Kale, the learned counsel for the respondent, has submitted that the respondent did not receive any appeal against the order of termination till 2004 and for the first time, the 3 petitioner filed an appeal on 07.08.2004 against the order of termination dated 26.07.1994. It is further contended that when the above referred writ petition was listed before this Court, the statement was made by the counsel for the respondent that the appeal would be decided according to law on its own merits, if not decided earlier. However, when the appeal of the petitioner was considered on merit, it was noticed that the same was hopelessly barred by limitation, and therefore, by the impugned order, the appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation. Considered the rival contentions canvassed by the respective counsel. In the backdrop of the above referred facts, though the petitioner claimed that he had filed the appeal within limitation, however, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement made by the counsel for the respondent that the appeal for the first time was filed in the year 2004, particularly because the petitioner filed earlier writ petition in the year 2004 itself. If the appeal would have been filed in the year 1994 itself and if the Appellate Authority would have failed to take a decision thereon, in that case, the petitioner would have approached this Court much earlier for necessary directions which he has, for the first time, sought 4 by filing the writ petition in 2006. Be that as it may. Even otherwise, issues involved in the present petition are disputed questions of fact, and therefore, we are not inclined to show indulgence. The writ petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE APTE