Judgment : Heard Shri V. Rodrigues, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri P. A. Kamat, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent waives service. 4. The above petition challenges an order dated 11.07.2012 passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal whereby an application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioners to file the revision challenging an order passed by the Dy. Collector, Quepem, dated 24.02.2011 came to be rejected. 5. Briefly, the facts of the case are that in February, 2011, the appeal preferred by the petitioners challenging an order passed by the learned Mamlatdar before the Dy. Collector came to be dismissed. Thereafter, it is the contention of the petitioners that the brief was handed over to their regular Advocate Shri Dukle to prefer the revision challenging the said order before the learned Administrative Tribunal. The record reveals from the affidavit of Shri Dukle that he was under dialysis and that he had informed the petitioners that he would prefer the revision and keep them informed accordingly. It is further revealed that in August, 2011, in view of his sickness he had not filed the revision petition and consequently, he requested the petitioners to talk with his colleague to file such revision. The record also reveals that apparently the brief was handed over to the colleague of Shri Dukle, Shri Rajydhyax to prefer such revision. In fact, the revision memo appears to be dated August, 2011 though the same came to be filed in February, 2012. The affidavit of the petitioner discloses that Advocate Shri Rajydhyax informed them in December, 2011 that he would not be in a position to file such revision petition and asked the petitioners to make some alternate arrangement. The petitioners thereafter contacted Advocate Shri Khandeparkar to prefer such revision. Apparently, the said Advocate does not appear before the learned Tribunal and the matter was thereafter handed over to another Advocate to file such revision petition before the learned Tribunal in February, 2012. The respondent has disputed the said contention and pointed out that there was gross negligence on the part of the petitioners in pursuing the remedy in filing the revision. The respondent has disputed the said contention and pointed out that there was gross negligence on the part of the petitioners in pursuing the remedy in filing the revision. It is the contention of the respondent that even assuming the affidavit of Shri Dukle is to be accepted, nevertheless, there is no satisfactory explanation given by the petitioners from August, 2011 till the filing of the petition in February, 2012. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties by the impugned order dismissed the application for condonation of delay. The reason for refusing the condonation was essentially on the ground that there was no explanation given by the petitioners from August, 2011 upto the date of the filing of the petition in February, 2012 as what prevented them from filing the petition during the said period. 6. Shri V. Rodrigues, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has pointed out that there was sufficient explanation on record which discloses that in August, 2011 the petitioners had approached Advocate Shri Rajydhyax and on oath it is stated that the said Advocate has returned the case papers in December, 2011. The learned counsel further pointed out that the delay was on account of Advocate Shri Khandeparkar who did not accept the brief to appear on behalf of the petitioners before the learned Tribunal. The learned counsel further pointed out that considering the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Apex Court, the learned Tribunal was not justified to refuse the application for condonation of delay. The learned Counsel as such submits that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. On the other hand, Shri P. A. Kamat, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently opposed the above petition. The learned counsel pointed out that there was gross negligence on the part of the petitioners which disentitle them from filing any application for condonation of delay. The learned Counsel further pointed out that after August, 2011, there was totally no action on the part of the petitioners and there is no justification on record which discloses that they are entitled for the condonation of delay. The learned counsel further pointed out that there is no evidence on record to support that the petitioners had in fact approached Advocate Shri Rajydhyax to file the revision before the learned Tribunal. The learned counsel further pointed out that there is no evidence on record to support that the petitioners had in fact approached Advocate Shri Rajydhyax to file the revision before the learned Tribunal. The learned counsel further pointed out that considering that there is gross negligence on the part of the petitioners, the learned Tribunal was justified to dismiss the application for condonation of delay and as such, no interference is called for in the impugned order. 8. I have duly considered the submissions of the learned Counsel and I have also gone through the records. From the narration of the facts as enumerated herein above, I find that the petitioners had handed over the brief to Advocate Shri Dukle to prefer the revision before the learned Tribunal. There is nothing on record to suggest that any statements made in the affidavit of Shri Dukle are not correct. On perusal of such affidavit, there is an averment therein to the effect that Shri Dukle was on dialysis and as such unable to file the revision on behalf of the petitioners. The affidavit suggests that Advocate Shri Dukle entrusted the brief to his colleague to file such revision. The learned Tribunal has failed to have a look at the vakalatnama which was produced on record and signed by most of the petitioners in favour of Advocate Rajydhyax. Not considering the said vakalatnama itself vitiates the findings of the learned Tribunal that there is no material on record to suggest that the petitioners had approached Advocate Shri Rajydhyax. The authenticity of the said wakalatnama has not been disputed by the respondent in his reply. It is well settled that a liberal approach should be taken in matter of condonation of delay. No doubt, any rights accrued to the opposite party should not be withdrawn automatically. Considering the material on record, in case the contentions of Shri P.A. Kamat, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent are accepted, at the most point out some negligence on the part of the Advocate engaged by the petitioners. It is well settled that parties should not suffer on account of the negligence on the part of the Advocate. In such circumstances and in the interest of justice, I find it appropriate that the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal dismissing the application for condonation of delay deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is well settled that parties should not suffer on account of the negligence on the part of the Advocate. In such circumstances and in the interest of justice, I find it appropriate that the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal dismissing the application for condonation of delay deserves to be quashed and set aside. But however, on account of the inconvenience caused to the respondent, due to the default on the part of the petitioners, I find that the respondent is to be compensated with costs on that count. The costs are quantified at Rs.5000/-. Shri Kamat, learned Counsel for the respondent seeks expeditious disposal of the Revision filed by the petitioners as the matter is unnecessarily prolonged. Hence, I find it appropriate to direct expeditious disposal of the Revision by the learned Administrative Tribunal. 9. In view of the above, I pass the following : ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 11.07.2012 is quashed and set aside. (ii) The application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioners in filing the revision before the learned Tribunal is allowed subject to the petitioners paying costs of Rs.5000/- as condition precedent within three weeks from today. (iii) The learned Tribunal is directed to decide the said revision preferred by the petitioners as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of this order. (iv) Parties are directed to remain present before the learned Tribunal on 27th December, 2012 at 10.30 a.m. (v) Rule is made absolute in above terms. (vi) The petition stands disposed of accordingly.