EAKNATH BABU BAGAD DIED THROUGH LRS DNYANDEO EKNATH BAGAD AND OTHERSversusBHIKAJI PRABHAKAR BHAIYYE AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:12308
                                                     1                        WP 2071-2016.odt


                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 2071 OF 2016

                  EAKNATH BABU BAGAD DIED THROUGH L.RS. DNYANDEO EKNATH
                                     BAGAD AND OTHERS
                                          VERSUS
                           BHIKAJI PRABHAKAR BHAIYYE AND OTHERS
                                                 …
             Mr. T.M. Tandale – Advocate for Petitioners
             Mr. S.S. Dixit – Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 14
                                                 …
                                   CORAM         : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                       DATE         : 18.03.2026

             ORDER:
             1.      Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for

             respondent Nos.1 to 14.


             2.      The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 03.12.2015

             passed    by   District    Judge-2,   Sangamner   in   Delay   Miscellaneous

             Application No. 8 of 2007, whereby the application filed for condonation

             of delay of 1703 days in preferring an appeal against the judgment and

             order dated 02.07.2002 in Scheme Application No. 5 of 2002 passed by

             respondent No.15 – Assistant Charity Commissioner, Ahmednagar Region,

             Ahmednagar, came to be rejected.


             3.      Learned Counsel – Mr. T.M. Tandale for the petitioners submits that

             the non-applicants had filed Scheme Application No. 5 of 2002 before the

             Assistant Charity Commissioner, Ahmednagar, which came to be decided

             on 02.07.2002. He submits that the petitioners had no knowledge of the
                                     2                         WP 2071-2016.odt


said order and, upon acquiring knowledge, they applied for certified

copies, which were received on 29.03.2007. He, therefore, contends that

the appeal was filed within limitation from the date of knowledge.


4.    Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that though

there is a delay of 1703 days from the date of the order, the same

occurred due to bona fide reasons and there was no deliberate or

intentional delay on the part of the petitioners. According to him, the

learned Appellate Court ought to have allowed the application for

condonation of delay.


5.    Per contra, learned Counsel – Mr. S.S. Dixit for respondent Nos.1 to

14 supports the impugned order. He submits that the scheme was

finalized as far back as in the year 2002 and no cogent or sufficient

reasons have been assigned for such an inordinate delay. He contends

that the grounds raised are vague and insufficient, and therefore, the

application was rightly rejected. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the

petition.


6.    Having heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and upon

perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the scheme under

Section 50A(1) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 was finalized by

order dated 02.07.2002. The petitioners thereafter sought to challenge

the same by filing an appeal along with an application for condonation of
                                        3                         WP 2071-2016.odt


delay of 1703 days.


7.       Upon perusal of the grounds in the delay condonation application,

it appears that the petitioners have contended that they gained

knowledge of the scheme only after issuance of summons in Regular Civil

Suit No.279 of 2006 and thereafter applied for certified copies. However,

the explanation offered for the substantial delay is vague and lacks

material particulars. It is also pertinent to note that the application for

condonation of delay itself came to be filed on 02.04.2007 and was

decided on 03.12.2015. The petitioners have failed to satisfactorily

explain the delay of such a long duration.


8.       In view thereof, this Court finds that the learned Appellate Court

has rightly exercised its discretion in rejecting the application for

condonation of delay. No interference is warranted in the impugned

order. Hence, the present petition deserves to dismissed.


9.       Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.


10.      There shall be no order as to costs.


11.      Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.



                                            [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
                                                      JUDGE
Pooja Kale/