VITTHALRAO SADASHIVRAO TARALE Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Advocate Patil for petitioner and Advocate Hussain for respondent No. 1. Nobody appears for respondent No. 2. Considering the nature of controversy, the matter is heard finally.

(2.) Advocate Patil points out that Court below has not condoned the delay of 26 days in filing appeal on the ground that petitioner has brought certificate of doctor from some other place with which he had no connection. Advocate Patil informs that brother in law of petitioner resides at that place and petitioner has taken treatment from doctor practicing there. He also invites attention to statement made on affidavit in this petition. Hence he states that the delay ought to have been condoned. Even if it is accepted that reasons put forth in application are not just and sufficient, because of small delay, the same deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice. Advocate Hussain defends the impugned order and he states that the application as filed could itself have been self sufficient with necessary details. He states that serious prejudice would be caused to M.S.E.B. if the delay is condoned.

(3.) I can not accept the reasons put forth by trial Court for rejecting the doctor's certificate. Moreover, explanation for that purpose has now come on record in the present writ petition. Delay is of only 26 days. In these circumstances, delay is condoned subject to present petitioner paying respondent No. 1 M.S.E.B. Rs. 1300/- by 20.10.2008. If the costs are so paid with the Court of District Judge -2 and Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur, he should direct registration of the appeal filed by the present petitioner and to proceed for deciding it in accordance with law. Rule accordingly.