Bombay High Court

SATISHCHANDRA BHAGWANDAS JAJU AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The petition cannot be entertained as the 32‑year delay is not condonable in the absence of satisfactory reasons.

Summary

The petitioners challenged an order dated 25 October 1983 issued by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Osmanabad, filing a writ petition on 23 January 2015 after a delay of 32 years. The petition sought condonation of this delay to contest the 1983 order. The Court examined whether the petition could be entertained despite the extensive lapse and found no satisfactory or cogent reason to justify condoning such delay. It referred to the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy (2013 AIR SCW 6158) on the stringent approach required for condonation applications. Applying those principles, the Court held that the petition suffered from delay and laches and therefore could not be allowed. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition filed after a delay of 32 years can be entertained without satisfactory reasons for condonation of delay
Whether the principles laid down in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy regarding condonation of delay apply to the present case

Subjects

condonation of delay
laches
writ petition
land reforms
judicial discretion
delay of proceedings

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:42055



                                                                  57 WP3267.2015
                                                -1-

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             57 WRIT PETITION NO. 3267 OF 2015

                   SATISHCHANDRA BHAGWANDAS JAJU AND OTHERS
                                            VERSUS
                        STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
                                               ...
              Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant K. Deshmukh
              AGP for Respondent/State: Mr. V. M. Jaware
                                               ...

                                         CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
                                            Date : 09.09.2026

              PER COURT :-

              1.         Heard.


              2.         Petitioners assail order dated 25.10.1983, rendered

              by Respondent No.2 – The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms,

              Osmanabad. While assailing the same, the Petition is presented on

              23.01.2015. Perusal of the Petition does not indicate any

              satisfactory reason much less justifiable one to consider delay of

              32 long years.


              3.         When confronted with same, the learned counsel for

              the Petitioners could not demonstrate any reason warranting to

              condone delay of 32 long years.
                                                             57 WP3267.2015
                                   -2-

4.         The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Esha

Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar

Academy and others, 2013 AIR SCW 6158, has observed as

under:

           “16. To the aforesaid principles we may add some more
           guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. They are:

                  (a) An application for condonation of delay should be
           drafted with careful concern and not in a half hazard manner
           harbouring the notion that the courts are required to condone
           delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on
           merits is seminal to justice dispensation system.

                  (b) An application for condonation of delay should not be
           dealt with in a routine manner on the base of individual
           philosophy which is basically subjective.

                  (c) Though no precise formula can be laid down regard
           being had to the concept of judicial discretion, yet a conscious
           effort for achieving consistency and collegiality of the
           adjudicatory system should be made as that is the ultimate
           institutional motto.

                  (d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non-
           serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be
           exhibited in a non-challant manner requires to be curbed, of
           course, within legal parameters.”


5.         In view of above and in absence of any satisfactory

and cogent reasons, the Petition does not deserve to be

entertained as it seriously suffers from delay and laches.


6.         Resultantly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.




                                           (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)
marathe

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…