(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 8343 OF 2010 Dyanadeep Bahu Udeshiya Vidya Prasarak Mandal, Tamaswadi, Taluka : Parola, District : Jalgaon (Maharashtra), Through its Secretary, Mr. Bhaiyasaheb s/o. Dharmaraj Pawar. .. Petitioner versus 1. The Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Shastry Bhavan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi. 2. The Regional Director, The National Council for Teacher Education (Statutory Body of Govt. of India), Western Regional Committee, Manas Bhavan, Shamla Hills, Bhopal - 462 002. 3. The Member Secretary, National Council for Teacher Education (Statutory Body of Govt. of India), Wing-II, Hans Bhavan, I Bahadurshah Jafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 002. (2) 4. The Under Secretary, National Council for Teacher Education (Statutory Body of Govt. of India), Western Regional Committee, Wing-II, Hans Bhavan, I Bahadurshah Jafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 002. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. V.B. Garud, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General, for respondent no.1. Mr. Satyajit S. Bora, Advocate, for respondent nos.2 to 4. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 13TH OCTOBER 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court, challenging the order dated 4th May 2010, passed by the respondent no.3, (3) thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner for condonation of delay caused in filing the appeal. 3. Mr. V.B. Garud, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner had given sufficient reasons for condoning delay caused in filing the appeal. He, therefore, submits that the learned authority ought to have condoned the delay and entertained the appeal on merits. 4. Mr. S.S. Bora, learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos.2 to 4, on the contrary, vehemently opposes the petition. He submits that no reasonable explanation is given in the application for condoning the delay and, therefore, the application is rightly rejected. 5. After taking into consideration the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay, we find, that it would have been in the interest of justice to condone the delay and entertain the appeal on its own merit. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed. (i) The impugned order dated 4th May 2010, passed by the respondent no.3, is quashed and set aside. The delay, caused in filing the appeal filed by the petitioner, is condoned. The (4) respondent no.3 is directed to decide the appeal of the petitioner on its own merits. (ii) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that by way of costs, the petitioner would deposit an amount of Rs. 5,000/- [Rupees five thousand] with the High Court Bar Association's Library at Aurangabad. We accept the aforesaid statement and direct the petitioner to deposit the costs within a period of two weeks from today. 7. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. ( A.A. SAYED ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp8343