IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5794 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 5794 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 5794 OF 2007 S.V. Chindhade ...Petitioner V/s. The Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.S.H. Shoal for the Petitioner. Mr.S.R. Nargolkar for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & V.M. KANADE, JJ. V.M. KANADE, JJ. V.M. KANADE, JJ. DATED : JANUARY 10, 2008 DATED : JANUARY 10, 2008 DATED : JANUARY 10, 2008 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. One of the grounds on which the application of the petitioner is rejected by the Tribunal is that the application is barred by the law of limitation. The petitioner was challenging the validity of the Government Resolution dated 5th August, 2003 in the original application filed before the MAT. A representation was made by the petitioner against that Government Resolution. That representation was admittedly rejected by communication dated 10th February, 2005. The MAT was approached on 5th January, 2007. Admittedly, there was no application made for condonation of delay separately. There was also no prayer in the original application for condonation of - 2 - delay. The MAT could not have assumed jurisdiction and entertained the petition without condoning the delay. The Tribunal could have condoned the delay only if there was an application made by the petitioner for that purpose either separately or in the petition itself. 2. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that limitation is not a matter of substance, in our opinion, limitation goes to the very root of the matter and if the matter is barred by the law of limitation, Section 3 of the Limitation Act prevents the court from taking cognisance of the matter. Therefore, without either seeking condonation of delay or exclusion of time either by making a separate application for that purpose or by making a prayer for that purpose in the original application, MAT could not have entertained the application filed by the petitioner. The MAT, therefore, in our opinion, rightly rejected the petition. The petition has no substance. It is rejected. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) - 3 - (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)