1 W.P.No.2339.10 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2339 OF 2010 Bajirao Sadashiv Jathar ... Petitioner v/s Shri Bhairavnath Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & ors. ... Respondents Mr.D.S.Sawant i/by Sangramsingh Yadav for the petitioner. Mr.G.N.Salunke for respondent No.1. Mr.Arvind M. Rane for respondent No.2. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 30TH AUGUST, 2010 P.C.: 1. The petition has been filed against the order of the School Tribunal rejecting the application for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal. In my view, the School Tribunal has not committed any error by rejecting the application. No sufficient cause was made out by the petitioner. The only reason mentioned for not approaching the School Tribunal within the period of limitation is that the 2 W.P.No.2339.10 petitioner had written several letters over the years to the Education Officer and he expected that he would be given justice. It is well settled now that the delay cannot be condoned only on the ground that the petitioner engaged in correspondence with the respondents for over four years. 2. The learned advocate for the petitioner relies on the judgment in the case of Vedabai alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil v/s Shantaram baburao Patil & ors., reported in (2001) 9 SCC 106, where the Supreme Court has held that there is no hard and fast rule which can be laid down as to when the Court should condone the delay. The Court has held that the expression “sufficient cause” must be construed by keeping in mind the principle of advancing substantial justice. 3. In my opinion, no sufficient cause has been made out by the petitioner and, therefore, the order of the School Tribunal is upheld. 4. Writ petition rejected. ..... 3 W.P.No.2339.10 4 W.P.No.2339.10