The Education Officer Primary Zilla Parishad Nanded And Another v. Sanskriti Samvardhan Mandal Through Secretary And Others

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12715 OF 2019 IN REVIEW APPLICATION (STAMP) NO. 28687 OF 2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3928 OF 2017 1.

The Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Nanded 2.

The Superintendent Pay and Provident Fund Unit, (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded ...APPLICANTS

VERSUS

1.

Sanskriti Samvardhan Manda, Sharda Nagar, Sagroli, Tq. Biloli, Dist. Nanded Through its Secretary 2.

Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji Junior Basic School, Sagroli, Tq.Biloli, Dist. Nanded, Through its Head Master 3.

Virbhadra S/o Parshuram Vishwabramha, Age: 36 years, Occu:Service, R/o Sagroli, Tq.Biloli, District Nanded 4.

Sham S/o Arjun Bhosale Age: 31 years, Occu.Service R/o Sagroli, Tq.Biloli, Dist.Nanded 5.

Tarabai D/o Kisan Siddhapure, Age: 30 years, Occu. Service, R/o Sagroli, Tq.Biloli, Dist. Nanded 6.

The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, School Education Department Mantralaya,Mumbai

(2) 7.

The Director of Education (Primary) Maharashtra State, Pune ....RESPONDENTS Mrs Yogita M. Kshirsagar, Advocate for applicants; Mr S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for respondent-State;

Mr. V.S. Panpatte, Advocate for petitioner in Writ Petition; CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.

DATE : 15th NOVEMBER, 2019 ORAL ORDER:

By way of present application, the applicants i.e. the Education Officer(Primary) Zilla Parishad, Nanded and the Superintendent, Pay and Provident Fund Unit,(Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded, prays for condonation of delay of 263 days caused in filing the Review Application. 2.

Though the learned Counsel appearing for the applicants made an attempt to submit that the delay caused was due to bona fide reasons and due to procedural difficulties, perusal of the application clearly shows that the only ground raised in the application is of "due to some official difficulties".

3.

The ground so raised is as vague as it could be. Leaving aside, no scope for this Court to even consider, whether delay caused was for some bona fide reason. Interestingly enough, even though the delay is of 263 days, as per the applicants the same is not so huge. Considering the fact that the delay application is thoroughly meritless, the only order

(3) that can be passed by this Court is to dismiss the application of condonation of delay. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. Needless to state, in view of application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed, no orders are required to be passed in the review application. ( MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.) kmk