1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4675 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra and others ...Petitioners Versus Bipinchandra Mangaldas Chokhawala ...Respondent ..... Mr. J.S. Gavane, AGP for the petitioners Mr. A.G. Magare, advocate for respondent ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 17TH AUGUST, 2009 PER COURT:- 1 Heard learned AGP for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent. 2 This petition takes exception to the order dated 5.10.2007 passed by the learned District Judge-I, Nandurbar in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2007 arising out of R.C.S. No. 11 of 2005. 3 It is not necessary to go into the details of the facts, since the order impugned in this petition is refusing to condone the delay of six days in filing the appeal preferred by the petitioner State. 2 4 Learned AGP appearing for the State has invited my attention to the ground taken in the petition and submitted that though in the application for condonation of delay the reason was given that the Officer wanted to attend meetings during the period of those six days and therefore, the appeal could not be filed within time. Learned AGP further submitted that the right of appeal of the parties is a valuable right and merely because there is six days delay in filing the appeal, impugned order should not have been passed by the lower appellate court. 5 The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that merely because the appellant is State or the matter brought in appeal was meritorious, is not a ground for condonation of delay of six days, as the said delay was not properly explained and therefore, this is not a case in which this Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the respondent, in support of his contention, has placed reliance on the following rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme court as well as this Court;- i) AIR 1981 Sc 1921 ii) AIR 1991 SC 2219 iii) 2000 All. M.R. (4) 798 iv) 2001 (2) Mh.L.J. 807 v) 2003 (3) Mh.L.J. 238 3 Learned counsel by placing reliance on the aforesaid judgments, would submit that merely because the State is the appellant or the matter is meritorious, is no ground for condonation of delay. 6 After hearing learned AGP for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and after perusal of the contents of application for condonation of delay filed before the lower appellate court as well as the contents of the writ petition and annexures thereto, I am of the considered view that the reason, which is given in the application for condonation of delay that during the said period the Officer was required to attend some meetings, though not exhaustive, requires to be accepted keeping in mind length of delay. It would be very hyper technical view not to condone delay of six days. I am inclined to entertain this petition. Right of appeal of the parties is a valuable right and same cannot be defeated by taking a hyper technical view and by not condoning the delay of six days. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. Writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause “B” and disposed of with no order as to cost. *****