(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 5300 OF 2007 Arjun Atmaram Patil. .. Petitioner. versus The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Agriculture Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, & 2 others. .. Respondents. ....................... Mrs. Sabahat Kazi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.G. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for the respondents. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 12TH AUGUST 2010 COURT'S ORDER (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has moved this Court for speaking to minutes of the order dated 20th (2) November 2008. 2. Mrs. Sabahat Kazi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that while granting liberty to the petitioner, to withdraw the Writ Petition, this Court has observed, that in the event, petitioner wants to take recourse to an alternate remedy, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for the period during which the petitioner was prosecuting the present petition. She submits that on account of the liberty granted by this Court, the petitioner has filed Original Application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and along with that, an application for condonation of delay is also filed. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that, however, this Court has not clarified, as to whether the petitioner is entitled for condonation of delay in filing the Original Application and, therefore, has moved this Court. 4. The order passed by this Court, dated 20th November 2008, is clear. This Court has clearly observed that the petitioner seeks to withdraw the petition so as to exhaust the alternate remedy available under the Administrative Tribunals Act. This Court has further observed that the petitioner would be entitled (3) to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act and, as such, the period during which the present proceedings were prosecuted, would be entitled to be excluded while considering the matter for condonation of delay. As such, it is clear that the petitioner is entitled to be given benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, while considering the application for condonation of delay and the period, during which the present petition was pending before this Court, is liable to be condoned. 5. With these observations, the motion is disposed of. ( S.S. SHINDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp5300