1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3225 OF 2010 Baneshwar Shikshan Sanstha's Shri Baneshwar D. Ed. College, At Burhannagar, Taluka Nagar, District Ahmednagar, through its Registrar Sudhakar Laxman Dhumane Age 69 years, Occ. Service, R/o Burhannagar, Tq. Nagar, District Ahmednagar. ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, (through its Secretary for Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai) 2. Under Secretary (Appellate Authority) National Council for Teacher Education, Wing-II, Hanas Bhavan, 1, Bahadurshah Marg, New Delhi 110 002 3. The Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, NCTE, Manas Bhavan, Shyamla Hills, Bhopal 462 002 4. The Director of State Council of Education, Research & Training, Sadashiv Peth, Pune. ... RESPONDENTS (Respondent No.1 & 4 to be served through the Government Pleader, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) ..... Shri A.S. Bayas, Advocate for the petitioner Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 4 Shri S.S. Bora, Advocate for repsondent Nos.2 & 3 ..... 2 CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED: 15th July, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V. HARDAS, J.): 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. We have heard Mr. A.S. Bayas, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, learned A.G.P. on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 4 and Mr. S.S. Bora, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 3. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns the order passed by respondent appellate authority, dated 7-8/1/2010, rejecting the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner. 4. In the light of the limited nature of challenge in the present petition, it is not necessary to advert to the factual aspects of the case, but it would suffice to state that the petitioner herein filed an appeal before the appellate authority on 14.12.2009 against the order passed by the competent authority dated 21.4.2009. The presentation of the 3 said appeal was beyond the period of limitation by five months and 26 days. The application of the petitioner came to be rejected by the appellate authority, but curiously enough, without ascribing any reason as to why the explanation tendered by the petitioner was not found satisfactory by the appellate authority. 5. In the application filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay, the petitioner had stated that, on the basis of the postal delay and on the basis of the wrong advice tendered by the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was engaged in preparing the filing of the writ petition. Subsequently, on an advice tendered by an Advocate from the High Court as well as an Advocate from the Supreme Court, the petitioner learnt that a provision of appeal was included in the Statute and accordingly, preferred the appeal which unfortunately was late by five months and 26 days. As pointed out by us above, the above order makes no reference to the explanation offered by the petitioner. 6. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, according to us, since the delay is caused on account of a wrong legal advice tendered to the petitioner, the delay of five months and 26 days deserves to be condoned. We accordingly allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned order and condone the delay in filing the appeal before the appellate authority. According to us, the condonation of delay ought to be with costs imposed on the petitioner. 4 Mr. Bayas, learned counsel for the petitioner has very graciously stated before us that the petitioner would deposit an amount of Rs. 5000/- with the High Court Bar Association Library at Aurangabad. We accept the aforesaid gesture, which is, according to us, is extremely generous and, therefore, condone the delay without imposing any further costs on the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition succeeds and the impugned order of the appellate authority is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the appellate authority for decision on the appeal on merits as the delay stands condoned by us. 8. Rule is thus made absolute on above terms with no order as to costs. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (P.V. HARDAS, J.)