IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION VPH WRIT PETITION No.5285 OF 2008 Subhash Abhimanu Khupse Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Respondents Mr. A. M. Joshi, for the petitioner. Mr. A. P. Vanarase, AGP for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Ms. Deepa Sawant i/b C.G. Gavnekar, for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4. CORAM : Dr. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATED : 21st, November 2008. P.C. . Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. There was a delay of 45 days in filing an appeal against an order of termination, under section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act, 1977. The Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay by its impugned order dated 6th May 2008. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the Tribunal has manifestly erred in coming to the conclusion that sufficient cause was not shown. - 2 - 3. In the application for condonation of delay, the petitioner stated that the notice of termination which was dated 10th August, 2007 was received only on 14th September 2007. This aspect of the matter has been accepted by the Tribunal in paragraph 6 of its judgment. The petitioner had stated that he had approached the Dy. Director of Education as well as the office bearers of the Trust to reconsider their decision. The petitioner also produced a medical certificate to the effect that his wife was suffering from pelvic inflammatory disease between 12th October 2007 and 9th November 2007. The Tribunal took a rather technical view of the matter, by holding that the signature of the patient was not appended to the certificate and the delay of 20 days after 9th November 2007 was not explained. The petitioner has also filed together with the present proceedings a certificate to the effect that on 8th December 2007 (after the appeal was filed) his wife had to undergo an abdominal hysterectomy operation. The materials which have been produced on record show that the case of the petitioner is not lacking in bona fides and there was no negligence or deliberate inaction on his part. Sufficient cause was shown to the Tribunal. The Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay by taking a just and equitable view of the of the case. - 3 - 4. In the circumstances, the order of the School Tribunal dated 6th May 2008 below Exh. 1 in Misc. Civil Application No. 18 of 2007 is set aside and the application for condonation of delay is allowed. The Tribunal shall proceed to register the appeal and to dispose of the appeal on merits, after hearing the parties. 5. The petition is accordingly disposed of with no orders as to costs. Sd/- [ Dr. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]