1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.6343 OF 2008 Dharangaon Municipal Council. PETITIONER. V E R S U S Suresh s/o Ramdas Barela. RESPONDENT. Shri U.S. Malte, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri K.C. Sant Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J : DATE : 26 th JUNE, 2009. PER COURT :- 1. The present petition challenges the order dated 22.06.1999 passed by the learned Labour Court in Ref. IDA No.17/1995 and the judgment and order dated 30.10.2002 in complaint ULP No.2316/1999. 2. Petition is filed on 4 th of August 2008 i.e nine years after first order and six years after second order. 3. A party seeking intervention of this Court in extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India is required to approach this court as expeditiously as possible. No doubt, if there is a delay in filing petition still the Court can entertain such 2 a petition, if the circumstances which resulted in belated filing of the petition are explained and found to be satisfactory by the Court. 4. Though there is delay of nine years in challenging first order and six years in challenging the second order, the petitioner has boldly stated in the petition at paragraph No.20 “The petitioner is approaching this Hon’ble High Court as expeditiously as possible. There is no intentional/deliberate delay on the part of petitioner. The delay, if any, deserves to be condoned in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 5. It would be thus seen that though there is inordinate delay of 6 years and 9 years in approaching the Court, the petitioner has shown courage enough stated that he has approached this court without any delay. 6. It is difficult to accept that a period of six years or nine years is not a delay for filing petition. 7. The petitioner has stated another reason at paragraph No.8, i.e from 22.09.1999 till 01.02.2008, most of the time the post of Chief officer was vacant and the additional charge was given to the other officers. Merely because regular Chief Officer was not available cannot be a ground for such an inordinate delay in filing petition. 8. I do not find the petition is entitled to invoke extra ordinary 3 jurisdiction of this Court without there being an sufficient explanation for inordinate delay in approaching this Court. The petition is therefore rejected on this ground. ( B. R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ..... aaa/wp6343.08