Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ashish Namdeo Sonkamble, applied for the post of Assistant Police Sub-Inspector (Radio Mechanic) and Police Constable (Wireless Operator) pursuant to an advertisement dated 16 December 2015. He cleared the written examination but was rejected on the ground that his height was 162.5 cm, below the prescribed 163 cm. After an unsuccessful representation, he filed Original Application No. 1039 of 2016 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal on 21 August 2016. The O.A. was admitted ex-parte on 7 September 2017 and pleadings were completed. On 25 June 2021, when the O.A. was listed for final hearing, neither the petitioner nor his advocate appeared, and the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. in default for lack of interest. The petitioner, claiming he was not aware of the dismissal due to his advocate's failure to inform him, filed Miscellaneous Application No. 617 of 2023 for restoration on 16 September 2023, along with an application for condonation of delay (M.A. No. 616 of 2023). The delay was about 2 years and 2 months. The Tribunal dismissed both applications on 30 November 2023, holding that the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause for the delay. The petitioner then approached the Bombay High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court observed that the petitioner had explained the delay by stating that his advocate did not inform him of the dismissal and that he was pursuing the matter bonafide. The Court held that a litigant should not suffer for the negligence of his advocate, and the Tribunal ought to have taken a liberal approach. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order, condoned the delay, and restored the O.A. to its original number for hearing on merits. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Condonation of Delay - Restoration of Dismissed Application - Petitioner's Original Application was dismissed for default due to non-appearance of advocate - Petitioner filed restoration application with delay of 2 years 2 months - Tribunal dismissed condonation of delay - High Court held that litigant should not suffer for advocate's negligence and delay was sufficiently explained - Held that the Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay and restored the matter on merits (Paras 4-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the delay in filing the restoration application should be condoned and the Original Application restored when the dismissal was due to the advocate's failure to appear.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the Tribunal's order dated 30 November 2023, condoned the delay, and restored Original Application No. 1039 of 2016 to its original number for hearing on merits. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Restoration of dismissed application
- Advocate's negligence
- Sufficient cause
- Liberal approach
- Article 227 of Constitution of India
