Judgment Heard Shri Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Shri G. Shirodkar, learned Counsel, in person and representing Respondent nos. 1 to 5, 7, 9 and 10 and Shri S. R. Rivonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 11 and 12. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel and the respective parties. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents waives service. 3. The short point for consideration in the above Petition is the legality of the Order dated 30.06.2011 passed in Misc. 138/11/COND/TRA in Tenancy Revision Application no. UN-REG./2011. By the impugned Order, the Tribunal has refused to condone the delay occasioned to the Petitioners to file a revision challenging an Order passed by the learned Deputy Collector dated 29.04.2009 in Tenancy Revision Application no. 25/2008 upholding the Order of the learned Mamlatdar, dated 18.11.2008. 4. Shri Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, has assailed the impugned Order essentially on the ground that the Petitioners on legal advise had preferred a Writ Petition before this Court challenging the Order of the Deputy Collector dated 29.04.2009 which came to be disposed of by this Court by Judgment dated 23.03.2011 in Writ Petition no. 18/2010, whereby this Court observed that the Petitioners had an efficacious remedy by way of filing a revision before the Administrative Tribunal. It was further observed that the Petitioners are at liberty to approach the Administrative Tribunal against the impugned Order passed by the learned Deputy Collector if so advised. Learned Counsel further pointed out that pursuant to the said liberty granted by this Court, the Petitioners preferred a revision before the Administrative Tribunal on 23.05.2011 along with an application for condonation of delay and by the impugned Order dated 30.06.2011, the learned Tribunal erroneously dismissed the application for condonation of delay. Learned Counsel further has also raised a grievance to the effect that while dismissing the application for condonation of delay, the learned Judge has discussed the merits of the revision application which is not justified. 5. On the other hand, Shri G. Shirodkar, appearing in person and representing the Respondent nos. 1 to 5, 7, 9 and 10, has supported the impugned Order. Shri Shirodkar, has pointed out that the Petitioners have been filing successive proceedings challenging the Orders passed by the Courts below only to delay the proceedings causing irreparable losses to the Respondents. 5. On the other hand, Shri G. Shirodkar, appearing in person and representing the Respondent nos. 1 to 5, 7, 9 and 10, has supported the impugned Order. Shri Shirodkar, has pointed out that the Petitioners have been filing successive proceedings challenging the Orders passed by the Courts below only to delay the proceedings causing irreparable losses to the Respondents. He further pointed out that the Petitioners have been negligent in pursuing their remedies as according to him even after disposal of the Writ Petition, there was a delay in filing the revision. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the delay in filing the revision was more than seven months after the impugned Order was passed by the learned Deputy Collector which shows total negligent on the part of the Petitioners and, as such, no discretion can be exercised in favour of such Petitioners. Learned Counsel as such submits that no interference is called for in the impugned Order. 6. Shri Rivonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 11 and 12 , has supported the impugned Order. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the said Respondents are unnecessarily being dragged by the Petitioners by filing erroneous proceedings before different forums only to delay the adjudication of the dispute on untenable grounds. Learned Counsel further pointed out the negligence on the part of the Petitioners disentitles them from any discretion under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsels and party appearing in person. I have gone through the records as well as the impugned Order. The contention of Shri Pangam that the learned Tribunal was not justified to go into the merits of the dispute whilst disposing of the application for condonation is to be accepted. With regard to the contention of Shri Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, that the learned Tribunal was not justified to dismiss the application for condonation of delay, I find that from the material on record as well as from the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties that it is not in dispute that the Writ Petition was preferred by the Petitioners which was disposed of by this Court on 29.03.2012 and that there was a dispute as to whether a second revision would lie under the provisions of the Goa Daman & Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964. This controversy came to be settled by this Court on 29.03.2011. Hence, the bonafides of availing the remedy by the Petitioners in filing the Writ Petition instead of filing a second revision before the Administrative Tribunal cannot be doubted. It is not in dispute that whilst disposing of the said Petition, the right of the Petitioners to avail of the alternate remedy was reserved. Shri Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, justifies the delay thereafter on the ground that the Petitioners learnt about the said Order only after 50 days from passing of the said Order. Even assuming there is negligence on that count, that by itself does not disentitle the Petitioners to seek condonation of delay, as no malafides are attributed in the Petition. 8. It would be appropriate to quote the observation of the Apex Court in the Judgment reported in 2009 (2) S. C. C. 692 in the case of Raj Kishore Pandey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., at para 8 which read thus: “8. In our opinion, whether the applicant has made out sufficient cause or not, in the application filed, the Court is required to look at all the facts pleaded in the application. No doubt, the consideration of the existence of sufficient cause is the discretionary power with the Court, but such discretion has to be exercised on sound principles and not on mere technicalities. The approach of the Court in such matters should be to advance the cause of justice and not the cause of technicalities. A case, as far as possible, should be decided on merits and the party should not be deprived to get the case examined on the merits.” 9. In view of the above and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the application for condonation of delay filed by the Petitioners is to be allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-to the Respondent nos. 1 to 5, 7, 9 and 10 and a sum of Rs.2,500/-to the Respondent no.11. All contentions of both the parties on merits are left open. 10. In view of the above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The Appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned Order dated 30.06.2011 dismissing the application for condonation of delay is quashed and set aside. All contentions of both the parties on merits are left open. 10. In view of the above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The Appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned Order dated 30.06.2011 dismissing the application for condonation of delay is quashed and set aside. (iii) The delay in filing the Revision before the Tribunal is condoned, subject to the Petitioners paying costs of Rs.5,000/-to the Respondent nos. 1 to 5, 7, 9 and 10 and a sum of Rs.2,500/-to the Respondent nos.11 and 12 within two weeks as condition precedent. (iv) The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the said Revision preferred by the Petitioners as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months. (v) The parties are directed to appear before the Administrative Tribunal on 28.09.2012 at 10.30 a.m.