VASANATI NARAYAN NAIK Vs. GURU SHIRODKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Pangam, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Shri G. Shirodkar, Learned Counsel, in person and representing Respondent nos. 1 to 5, 7, 9 and 10 and Shri S.R. Rivonkar, Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 11 and 12. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the Learned Counsel and the respective parties. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents waives service.

(2.) The short point for consideration in the above Petition is the legality of the Order dated 30.06.2011 passed in Misc. 138/11/COND/TRA in Tenancy Revision Application No. UN-REG./2011. By the impugned Order, the Tribunal has refused to condone the delay occasioned to the Petitioners to file a revision challenging an Order passed by the learned Deputy Collector dated 29.04.2009 in Tenancy Revision Application No. 25/2008 upholding the Order of the learned Mamlatdar, dated 18.11.2008.

(3.) Shri Pangam, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, has assailed the impugned Order essentially on the ground that the Petitioners on legal advise had preferred a Writ Petition before this Court challenging the Order of the Deputy Collector dated 29.04.2009 which came to be disposed of by this Court by Judgment dated 23.03.2011 in Writ Petition No. 18/2010, whereby this Court observed that the Petitioners had an efficacious remedy by way of filing a revision before the Administrative Tribunal. It was further observed that the Petitioners are at liberty to approach the Administrative Tribunal against the impugned Order passed by the learned Deputy Collector if so advised. Learned Counsel further pointed out that pursuant to the said liberty granted by this Court, the Petitioners preferred a revision before the Administrative Tribunal on 23.05.2011 along with an application for condonation of delay and by the impugned Order dated 30.06.2011, the learned Tribunal erroneously dismissed the application for condonation of delay. Learned Counsel further has also raised a grievance to the effect that while dismissing the application for condonation of delay, the learned Judge has discussed the merits of the revision application which is not justified.