1 / 3 22.wp7731.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 7731 OF 2026 ASHA PRAKASHRAO RAUT VS SMT. USHAKIRAN ARUN THUTE AND OTHERS. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. S.D. Abhyankar, Advocate for petitioner. Ms. M.R. Kavimandan, AGP for respondent/State. CORAM : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 05.10.2026 Heard Mr. Abhyankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Kavimandan, learned AGP for the respondent Nos.2 & 3/State. 2. In view of the order being passed, notice to the respondent No.1 is being dispensed with. 3. The present petition challenges the order below Exhibit 1 in Miscellaneous Application No.31 of 2025, the order being passed on 20.04.2026, by the Joint Charity Commissioner-II, Nagpur. By way of said order, the authority has rejected the application seeking restoration of the revision. Prity 2 / 3 22.wp7731.2026 4. It is the primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a specific averment regarding the petitioner being unaware of the dismissal of the earlier revision in default was made which has not been considered by the authority below in its proper perspective. 5. I have gone through the impugned order. The reason which weighed with the authority in rejecting the application is the long delay in filing the revision application itself. Moreover, the authority has taken into consideration that there is a substantial delay, which, according to the said authority is unexplained. 6. However, the authority below has lost sight of the fact that the aspect of the condonation delay needs to be approached through a liberal point of view rather than pragmatic. In that view of the matter, the following order is passed. 7. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. 8. The authority i.e. Joint Charity Commissioner-II, Nagpur, is directed to decide the Prity 3 / 3 22.wp7731.2026 application afresh by granting opportunity to the parties of hearing. 9. Needless to mention that the authority may consider imposing of some costs while restoring the revision, inasmuch as since the revision is dismissed in default, it would amount to foreclosure of the valuable rights of the parties. 10. With these directions, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly. [ NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. ] Prity Signed by: Mrs. Prity Gabhane Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 08/10/2026 10:36:01