VIDARBHA CRICKET ASSOCIATION Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER NAGPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard.

(2.) The above petition takes exception to the order dated 24.01.2011 passed by the Additional Collector, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, by which the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner in filing the restoration application for restoring the Revision Application No. S-44/2/2008-09 came to be rejected.

(3.) It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that, there was a delay of 14 days in filing the said application. The petitioner filed the said application under an impression that such an application is required to be filed within 30 days of the proceeding being dismissed in default. During the course 3 of the hearing of the above petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that having regard to section 35 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 the State Government is vested with the powers to go into the legality or propriety of any order passed by any officer under the said Act at any time for the purposes of satisfaction. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view thereof there is no limitation prescribed for the respondents for the exercises of revisionary powers. It is, therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the application was not required to be filed much less to be rejected on the ground of there being delay. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 Shri Gaikwad and the learned Counsel Shri Kale for respondent No.3 do not dispute the said proposation which has been made on the basis of section 35 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. In my view therefore the, rejection of the application for condonation of delay would be of no consequence, though in cases where no limitation is prescribed, the challenge has to be raised within a reasonable period.