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. 2026:BHC-AUG:42055 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