RAMCHANDRA MANIKRAO PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Learned AGP waives service of Rule notice for the respondents. Petition is taken up for hearing forthwith. The petitioner was served with notice under Section 23 of the Bombay Highways Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The date of the notice is 12th April, 2012. It is averred in the petition that the said notice was served to the petitioner's tenant on 22nd April, 2012 which was received by the petitioner on 23rd April, 2012. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the said notice by invoking Section 24 of the said Act. The appeal was filed on 27th April, 2012.

(2.) By order dated 27th April, 2012, the District Collector who is the appellate authority held that the appeal ought to have been preferred within a period of seven days from the date of notice i.e. from 12th April, 2012. He held that as the appeal was preferred on 27th April, 2012, the same was barred by limitation.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. He submits that the appeal was preferred within seven days from the date of service of notice and, therefore, the same was within limitation. The learned AGP supported the impugned order. He submitted that in the memorandum of appeal, the petitioner has not disclosed the date on which the notice under Section 23 of the said Act was served to him. He submitted that there was no application made for condonation of delay.