:1: 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. 1388 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 1388 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 1388 OF 2008 The General Secretary, Kasegaon Education Society, Kasegaon, Sangli ..Petitioner versus Chandu S. Bhalkar & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. V. A. Shastry for the Petitioner. Mr. S. S. Pakale for the Respondent No. 1. Mr. R. M. Patne, AGP, for the Respondent No. 2. Mr. Y. A. Sakhare i/b. Y.K.S. Legal for the Respondent No. 3. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 3RD MARCH, 2009 DATE : 3RD MARCH, 2009 DATE : 3RD MARCH, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the respondent No.1’s application for condonation of delay was not considered prior to the entertainment of the appeal but was decided at the time of final decision of the appeal. Mr. Pakale, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 fairly :2: did not dispute this fact but submits that the error is not serious enough to warrant interference. 3. It is not possible to accept the submission on behalf of the respondent No. 1 since the law requires the Court or a Tribunal to invariably decide the application for condonation of delay before entertaining the appeal or any other proceeding as the case may be. The procedure adopted by the Tribunal leads to unnecessary costs to the litigants and moreover deprive the litigant of a right to agitate the decision on the application for condonation of delay. 4. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. The Tribunal is directed to decide the application for condonation of delay first and then proceed with the matter depending on the result of the application for condonation of delay, as expeditiously as possible but not later than six months from the date the parties appear before it. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 30.3.2009. 5. It is not disputed that the respondent No. 1 is in service. In the circumstances, it will be :3: appropriate in the interest of justice not to disturb the respondent No. 1 till the application for condonation of delay or the appeal as the case may be decided by the School Tribunal. Hence there shall be status quo of service of the respondent No. 1 until then. 6. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)