1 wp3241-10.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3241 OF 2010 Deepak D. Samudre & Ors .. Petitioners versus Vasant M. Holkar & Ors .. Respondents Mr.M.L.Patil for the petitioners. Mr.T.S.Ingle for respondent Nos.1,5,12,14,15,17 and 21. Mr.Amit Sale for respondent Nos.3,4,7,8,9,11,13 and 20. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 25th July 2011. P.C.: . Heard both sides. 2 The writ petition challenges an interim order refusing to grant stay to implementation of a scheme and particularly to an order dated 20th May 2008 of the Assistant Charity Commissioner at Sangli in Scheme Application No. 2378 of 2007. 2 wp3241-10.doc 3 It is urged by Mr.Patil that Misc.Civil Appeal No.26 of 2009 is directed against this order of Assistant Charity Commissioner. It is contended that the interim stay as prayed has been refused. The apprehension is that the same is refused on 30th November 2009. The scheme and the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner is being implemented although there is a serious challenge to the said order. Today, the contesting respondents are not appearing even at the hearing of the application for condonation of delay. Therefore, there is an apprehension that the appeal can never proceed and the affairs would be continued in terms of the scheme and the Assistant Charity Commissioner’s order. 4 After hearing both sides, in my view, a scrutiny of the record, at this stage and going into the rival contentions so also rendering a finding when the appeal itself is pending, would not be in the interest of both sides. Instead, the apprehension of the petitioners can be taken care of by hearing the parties on the application for condonation on delay. 5 Since the apprehension is that the contesting respondents are 3 wp3241-10.doc not appearing for the hearing of the said application, I have heard Mr.Patil and Mr.Ingle on the point of condonation of delay. 6 The appeal to challenge the impugned order dated 20th May 2008 has been filed on 20th January 2009. Thereafter, the application for condonation of delay has been filed stating therein that the petitioners-original appellants were unaware of the order and only because certain prayers were commenced, that they became aware of the same. Upon immediately coming to know of the said order and after the Christmas vacation, the appeal has been filed. Considering the contents of the said application and bearing in mind, that the delay is only of 184 days, interest of justice would be served if the same is condoned and the appeal is directed to be registered and taken on file. 7 In my view, considering the contents of the application of condonation of delay and reply thereto filed on 16th March 2009, sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of delay. The petitioners cannot be said to be negligent, nor can the application be said to be lacking in bonafides. For these reasons, the delay of 184 4 wp3241-10.doc days is condoned. The appeal be now registered and taken up for hearing in accordance with law. 7 Considering that the dispute is pending for a long time and the Assistant Charity Commissioner’s order is subject to this appeal, the appellate authority may take up the appeal for expeditious hearing. All contentions of both sides in so far as the merits of the appeal are concerned, are kept open. The writ petition is disposed off in these terms. If the Joint Charity Commissioner takes up the appeal for expeditious hearing in pursuance of these directions, both sides shall co-operate in early disposal of the same. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)