๐๐จ๐ฆ๐๐๐ฒ ๐๐ข๐ ๐ก ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ ๐๐๐ข๐ญ๐๐ซ๐๐ญ๐๐ฌ: ๐๐๐ซ๐ข๐ญ๐ฌ ๐๐๐ง๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐๐ฎ๐๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐ญ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ “๐๐ฎ๐๐๐ข๐๐ข๐๐ง๐ญ ๐๐๐ฎ๐ฌ๐โ ๐ข๐ง ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ฒ ๐๐จ๐ง๐๐จ๐ง๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง – ๐๐๐ญ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ง๐๐๐ฌ ๐ ๐ข๐ง๐๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก ๐ ๐๐ข๐ซ๐ง๐๐ฌ๐ฌ
Regstreet Law Advisors had the opportunity to represent the Petitioner before the Honโble High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 13733 of 2024, challenging an order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal – India condoning a delay of nearly 12 months in filing a Review Application.
The Tribunal had itself recorded that there was no โsubstantial reasonโ and that no โproper explanationโ had been offered for condonation of delay. Despite this finding, the delay was condoned on the ground that a legal issue concerning the reservation policy required reconsideration on merits.
On behalf of the Petitioner, it was argued that once the Tribunal had concluded that โsufficient causeโ was not shown, the enquiry ought to have ended there. It was submitted that limitation is founded on public policy and that the merits of the underlying dispute cannot be used as a substitute for statutory compliance under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
The Court reiterated that the law of limitation is not a mere technicality but a rule of public policy intended to ensure certainty and finality in litigation. It stated that the court, at the stage of considering delay condonation, should not, in the usual course, be concerned with the merits of the underlying dispute.
However, balancing procedural discipline with considerations of fairness, the Court noted the Tribunalโs strong prima facie view that its earlier order may have affected the reservation policy framework. In these peculiar facts, and in the interest of justice, the High Court set aside the impugned order and granted Respondent a limited opportunity to file an additional affidavit explaining the delay and remanded the matter.
The judgment is an important reaffirmation that finality and fairness must coexist and that limitation cannot be diluted on perceived merits.
Regstreet Law Advisors team comprising Mr. Abhineet Pange, Mr. Sumit Agrawal, Mr. Kavish Garach, Mr. Shantanu Joshi, Ms. Aditi Sahu and Mr. Akarsh Tripathi represented the Petitioner.
A copy of the judgment is attached. Readers are encouraged to share their views with Regstreet Law Advisors at info@regstreetlaw.com.