THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.31312 of 2010 DT.14.12.2010 Between: Ramasani Surender … Petitioner And The District Collector (CS), Adilabad, Adilabad District and others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Venkateshwar VAranasi Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside order, dated 22.10.2010, of respondent No.1. The petitioner was appointed as fair price shop dealer in respect of shop No.10 of Mandamarri by order, dated 23.03.2010, of respondent No.3. The said order having been set aside by respondent No.2, at the instance of respondent No.5, in Appeal No.CS6/193/2010- 8, vide his order, dated 28.07.2010, the petitioner filed a revision petition before respondent No.1 with a delay of 22 days. The reason put forth by the petitioner for the said delay was that he was suffering from high fever and consequently, bed ridden. Respondent No.1 declined to condone the said delay on the ground that the petitioner failed to adduce sufficient proof in support of his plea that he was bed ridden. In my opinion, while the person, who seeks condonation of delay, needs to satisfactorily explain the reasons for the delay, the object of providing for a remedy is to enable the aggrieved party to get his matter decided on merits. The authority, which exercises either appellate or revisional power, shall be circumspect in considering the plea for condonation of delays. The discretion of the authority has to be carefully exercised depending on the facts of each case and the length of the delay. In the instant case, there was delay of only 22 days, for which, the petitioner has offered the explanation that he was suffering from fever. While in ordinary course, he was supposed to file Doctor Certificate, on the facts of this case and having regard to the fact that the delay was not too long, respondent No.1 ought not to have made a rigid approach by strictly insisting on proof of ill-health of the petitioner. Such insistence would have been justified in case of longer delay. In this view of the matter, the rejection of the revision petition by respondent No.1 on the ground of delay cannot be sustained in law and the impugned order is accordingly set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to entertain the revision petition and dispose of the same on merits, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.39844 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 14.12.2010 VGB