1 901-ca-5260-2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5260 OF 2026 IN WP/3782/2021 Motichand Tilokchand Bedmutha VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others ... Advocate for the Applicant : Mr. A.D. Ostwal AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. D.B. Bhange Advocate for Respondent No.6 : Mr. N.N. Jagadale Advocate for Respondent No.9 : Mr. S.S. Rathi Advocate for Petitioner in WP : Mr. V.B. Deshmukh WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2273 OF 2016 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3782 OF 2021 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1533 OF 2016 ... CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : AUGUST 18, 2026 P.C.: 1. The petitioner Mr. Motichand Tilokchand Bedmutha has filed Writ Petition No.3782 of 2021 in order to challenge order dated 27.08.2015 passed by Secretary of Revenue and Forest Department, Government of Maharashtra at Mumbai in File No. Appeal/2014/L.No.188/J-7 A/L No.873 (08)/2014. The said order is also subject matter of challenge in other two petitions bearing Writ Petition Nos.2273 of 2016 and 1533 of 2016. The petitioner Mr. Bedmutha is respondent in said petitions and has filed present petition in his capacity as President of Osmanabad District Marathi Reporter Association. Mr. Bedmutha expired on 22.04.2021. After his demise, 2026:BHC-AUG:36965 2 901-ca-5260-2026.odt the Association passed a resolution in its special meeting held on 04.04.2023 interalia resolving that the President or Secretary or Treasurer of Association can represent the interest of Association in the petition. Thereafter, three civil applications came to be prepared for substitution of name of respondents in other two petitions i.e. Writ Petition Nos.2273 of 2016 and 1533 of 2016 and for substitution of name of petitioner in present petition i.e. Writ Petition No.3782 of 2019. The affirmation on this application is sworn on 19.04.2023. In present petition also, copy of civil application is served on the office of Government Pleader on 19.04.2023. However, all these three applications are filed on 21.04.2026. In such circumstances, there is a delay of around 1423 days in filing application for substitution of name of petitioner. The civil applications filed in other two cases where Mr. Bedmutha is respondent have been allowed vide order dated 04.08.2026. 2. Perusal of order dated 04.08.2026 allowing Civil Application No.5258 of 2026 in Writ Petition No.1533 of 2016 will indicate that the respondents in said petition did not file any reply opposing the application. On that basis, this Court has drawn an inference that respondents have no grievance with respect to contents of application. It must be stated that petitioners in said petition had expressly given no objection for allowing the application. 3 901-ca-5260-2026.odt 3. The respondent no.6 has filed reply in present application opposing the same. Learned advocate for respondent no.6 contends that although the application is sworn on 19.04.2023, the same is filed after an inordinate delay for which no plausible explanation is offered in the application. Learned advocate contends that the application is casually drafted and as such, same deserves to be rejected. His contention is that inordinate delay of over 1400 days cannot be condoned merely for asking. Learned advocate has placed strong reliance on judgment of this Court in case of Prof (Mrs) Nelly Rodrigues Vs. Branch Manager, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited reported in 2025 (1) Bom. C.R. 554 wherein this Court has held that in case where applications for condonation of delay are drafted casually and contents of application are not supported by appropriate documents, delay cannot be condoned. 4. It is by now well settled that the applications for condonation of delay should be construed liberally with an endeavour to decide cases on merit rather than dismissing the same on technical ground of delay. However, it is equally well settled that the delay cannot be condoned merely for asking. Each case is required to be viewed in its particular set of facts and judicial discretion is required to be exercised in order to consider that delay should be condoned or not. 5. In this backdrop, when one takes a overview of facts of 4 901-ca-5260-2026.odt present case, it appears that in the first case instead of instituting proceeding against the Association, the proceeding is initiated against the President of Association. The President of Association has filed the petition being aggrieved by order passed by respondent no.1. The petition is not filed in order to espouse the personal cause. It is filed in the capacity of President of Association. In other two cases, the application is allowed by this Court accepting the explanation offered in the applications. Identical reasons are given in present application for condonation of delay. The petitioner/President expired on 22.04.2021 when by virtue of order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, period of limitation was suspended. This suspension of limitation continued till February-2022. The Hon’ble Supreme Court directed that in cases where limitation expired prior to 28.02.2022 should be filed within a period of 90 days therefrom. The resolution for substitution of name is passed in the meeting held on 04.04.2023 and the application came to be prepared on 19.04.2023. The copy of application is also served on office of Government Pleader. However, the application was not filed with office of this Court. The applicant has filed affidavit of advocate’s clerk who has stated that he was indisposed and it is due to his mistake, the application could not be filed. 6. What transpires from the record is that although the affidavit in support of application is sworn and copy thereof is already served on 5 901-ca-5260-2026.odt Government Pleader’s Office, the same is filed after an inordinate delay of 1423 days. The delay as is apparent from the facts narrated above is attributable to the office of learned advocate representing the petitioner/applicant. By now, it is well settled that the litigant could not be made to suffer for the fault or mistake on behalf of his advocate or staff associated with the office of advocate. 7. In view of aforesaid and also having regard to the fact that in two petitions assailing the same order, the applications for condonation of delay of same period are allowed, in the considered opinion of this Court, present application also deserves to be allowed. It must also be mentioned that the case in strict sense is not the one for bringing legal heirs on record. The petitioner as mentioned above has not filed the petition to espouse his personal cause. He was representing cause of Association of which he was the President at the relevant time. The Association as mentioned above ought to have been arrayed as party to the proceeding before learned authorities below. However, instead of Association, the President of Association was arrayed as party in his personal name. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of case, in the considered opinion of this Court, the ends of justice would be subserved by condoning delay caused in filing application for substitution of name of petitioner. Hence, civil application is allowed. The delay of 1423 6 901-ca-5260-2026.odt days caused in filing the application is condoned and permission is granted to substitute name of Mr. Dhananjay Shrimantrao Randive as President of Osmanabad District Marathi Reporter Association, as petitioner in writ petition. 9. However, having regard to the delay that is occasioned, cost of Rs.15,000/- is imposed inclusive of amount of Rs.5,000/- which is already deposited by the applicant with Government Cancer Hospital, Aurangabad. Additional cost of Rs.10,000/- be paid to Osmanabad Advocates Bar Association on or before 27.08.2026. [ROHIT W. JOSHI J.] Mujaheed//