wp901.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.901 OF 2011 Dr. Suprabha Babasaheb Kumatkar, Age-35 years, Occu:Medical Practitioner, R/o-Nannaj, Tq-Jamkhed, Dist-Ahmednagar. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Health Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, 2) The State Appropriate Authority and Additional Director of Health Services, Family Welfare, MCH & SH, Pune-1, 3) The District Counseling Authority and District Civil Surgeon, District Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar, Dist-Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.B.A. Shinde Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for Respondents. ... wp901.11 2 CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 9TH FEBRUARY, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT [PER S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself. 2. The Petitioner assails the order dated 29th November, 2010/4th December, 2010 passed by the State Appropriate Authority, whereby the appeal of the present Petitioner was dismissed on the count of limitation. 3. Shri. Shinde, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner had made out a sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the limitation period, but the State Appropriate Authorities have not considered the wp901.11 3 same in correct perspectives. The State Appropriate Authority has not discussed the reason stated for not preferring appeal within the limitation. Invaluable rights of the Petitioner - Appellant are involved in as much as the registration to use the Sonography machine/clinic has been cancelled. 4. Shri. Khandare, learned Government Pleader supports the Judgment of the State Appropriate Authorities and submits that as the Petitioner has not spelt out sufficient cause, the Authorities have properly dismissed the appeal on the said count. 5. It is a trite law that if the technical considerations and cause for substantial justice are pitted against each other, the cause for substantial justice, shall prevail. The appeal involves the rights of the Petitioner - Appellant to carry on the profession. The registration to wp901.11 4 use the Sonography machine has been cancelled. In the circumstances, it would be proper to give an opportunity to the Petitioner to contest the said appeal on merits. Moreover the Petitioner has given reasons for not preferring the Appeal within limitation period. The said reasons can be construed as sufficient cause. 6. In the light of the above, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 29th November, 2010 passed by the State Appellate Authority and relegate the Petitioner to the said Authority. The Authority shall decide the said appeal on its own merits, expeditiously. 7. Rule made absolute in above terms, however, with no order as to the costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/JAN11/wp901.11