- (1.) THE respondents of S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.8589/2013 seek to maintain this intra -court appeal against the order dated 15.07.2013, whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has allowed the said writ petition and has directed the present appellants to allow the writ -petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) to rectify the mistake committed by him while filling in the OMR Sheet of the entrance test for admission to the Post Graduation Course; and has also directed the appellants to scrutinize the OMR Sheet of the writ - petitioner after such rectification and to accord him admission in the Post Graduation Course, if he has secured sufficient marks for such admission.
(2.) THE memo of this appeal against the order dated 15.07.2013 was filed in the Registry on 23.07.2013. However, it was not accompanied by the certified copy of the order impugned. The certified copy was filed only on 11.02.2014. The Office has, accordingly, reported on limitation that this appeal is time -barred by 151 days, particularly with reference to the date of filing of the certified copy of the order impugned. The appellants have filed an application (CMCW No.102/2014) seeking condonation of delay while stating as under: - "(2) That the certified copy of the order impugned dated 15.7.2013 was not received by the undersigned at the time of filing of appeal however the appeal was filed within time. The certified copy of the appeal was then applied for and the same was received and immediately filed on 11.2.2014. (3) That prior to this above the appellant university considered the matter and appointed an officer to collect the case file and opinion from the university advocate representing the appellant before the learned Single Judge. However the matter was sent to the undersigned for filing appeal before the Hon'ble Division Bench enclosing a photocopy of the order but without enclosing the certified copy of the order impugned herein. Apparently the appellant university did not receive the certified copy of the order from the previous counsel and since the appeal had already been filed the appellants had no option but to file fresh application for certified copy of order dated 15.7.2013. (4) That thus, the delay caused in filing the appeal is bonafide and unintentional and in any way, neither the present appellant can be said to be negligent nor the delay can be said to be gross or malafide and therefore, the delay deserves to be condoned and the appeal filed by present appellants/applicant is required to be heard on merits."
(3.) THUS , it is the so -called bona fide mistake which has been put forward as a ground for not filing the certified copy of impugned order earlier and, according to the appellants, the delay cannot be said to be gross or mala fide.;