29-WP-12665-2024.DOC Rekha Patil IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12665 OF 2024 Nitin Shantaram Mahale …Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. …Respondents Mr. M. D. Lonkar with Ms. A. M. Lonkar i/b Mr. Om M. Lonkar , for the Petitioner. Ms. Kavita Sounke, Addl. G.P, for the Respondents-State. CORAM: SUMAN SHYAM & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, JJ. DATED: 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026. PC:- 1. Heard Mr. M. D. Lonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. 2. By filing this Writ Petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 18th April, 2017, passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal Mumbai Bench at Aurangabad in Original Application No. 326 of 2013, filed by the Petitioner, as Original Applicant, whereby his claim for recognizing the seniority from the date of appointment as State Tax Inspector (‘STI’) was declined by the learned Tribunal by giving reasons. 3. The Petitioner is before us assailing the said order of the learned MAT, after apparent delay of more than six years. On a pointed query made by this Court, Mr. Lonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has invited our attention to the ground “(j)”, which has projected the explanation for the delay. However, REKHA PRAKASH PATIL Digitally signed by REKHA PRAKASH PATIL Date: 2026.09.22 10:45:12 +0530 29-WP-12665-2024.DOC after going through the ground, we find that same cannot be treated as cogent and sufficient explanation for the delay of six years. The ground “(j)” is reproduced herein below for ready reference:- “(j) The Petitioner submits that, no doubt, order and judgment passed by the Ld. MAT dtd. 18.4.2017 and, after receipt of thereof, the Petitioner tried to ventilate his grievances before the Departmental Authorities with a hope of positive outcome. Subsequently, in view of the unfortunate eruption of pandemic, the Petitioner could not immediately approach this Hon’ble Court. The Petitioner submits that there is no inordinate delay, much less latches in filing the present Writ Petition. Right conferred upon the Petitioner, especially, in the teeth of law laid down by the Ld. MAT and the consistent approach of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 should not be defeated on account of outcome plea of limitation.” 4. Ms. Kavita Solunke, learned Addl. GP appearing for the State has also resisted the Petition on the ground of delay. 5. Considering the fact that the claim of the Petitioner is of seniority, even if such claim is accepted, reopening the said issue after a lapse of more than six years would undoubtedly cause prejudice to the interest of other departmental candidates. 6. Situated thus, we are of the view that the Writ Petition is hit by delay and laches. The same is accordingly dismissed. (GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.) {