Maharashtra Employees State Insurance Scheme Medical Officer Association, Thr. Its Secretary v. The State Of Maharashtra Finance Department, Thr. Its Secretary

5-WP-677-11 1/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO.677 OF 2011 Maharashtra Employees State Insurance Scheme Medical Officers Association, Nagpur, Thr. its Secretary -vs- State of Maharashtra, Finance Department, Thr. its Secretary & Anr. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.

or directions and Registrar's orders.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri N. R. Saboo, Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Fulzele, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri M.P. Pillai, Advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.S.CHANDURKAR, JJ.

DATE : 03.02.2015.

Matter was dismissed for want of prosecution. However, upon request made by Advocate Saboo immediately it was restored and heard in second half. Advocate Saboo submits that petitioner sought review of a judgment delivered by MAT on 17/03/2010 in O.A.No.370 of 1999. There was delay and hence separate application for its condonation was moved. That application has not been appropriately considered. Impugned order dated 15/10/2010 does not evaluate all contentions and necessary law. He invites attention to judgment of larger bench of Administrative Tribunal reported at (1988) 7 Administrative Tribunal Cases 696 (P. Kandavel And

5-WP-677-11 2/2 Others Vs. Director Genera, Posts And Telegraphs Department, New Delhi And Ors).

Advocate M.P. Pillai for respondent No.3 and learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2 are opposing the petition. Impugned order shows that as Rule 18 of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1988 does not contain any express provision for condonation of delay, it has been passed. Advocate Saboo has attempted to invite attention to provisions of Section 29(2) of Limitation Act and certain other judgments to buttress his submissions.

However, as we find impugned order dated 15/10/2010 not containing necessary application of mind, we do not find it necessary to delve more into controversy. All arguments raised by Advocate Saboo are kept open. Order dated 15/10/2010 passed on C.A.No.265 of 2010 in Review(St.) No.1064 of 2010 is hereby quashed and set aside. C.A.No.265 of 2010 is restored back to file for taking fresh decision after hearing all concerned.

Parties are directed to appear before MAT on 02/03/2015. Writ petition is thus partly allowed and disposed of. No order as to costs.

JUDGE JUDGE asmita