1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.755 OF 2011 Nav Maharashtra Dal & Flour Industries & Ors. .. Petitioners V/s Vasantdada Shetkari Sahakari Bank Sangli & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.R.S.Datar, Advocate for the petitioners. CORAM : R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 11th February, 2011 P.C. : 1. Heard Mr.Rajesh Datar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. By this petition the petitioners are challenging the judgment and order dated 30.10.2010 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Socieities, Kolhapur Division, Kolhapur. By that judgment, the application made by the 1st Respondent for condonation of delay of 186 days caused in filing the revision application against the order dated 30.6.2009 was allowed. While condoning the delay, the Divisional Joint Registrar observed as under:- “I have gone through the contents of the application and submissions of rival parties. It is seen that the applicant bank has taken into liquidation on 16.2.2009 and the board of liquidator was appointed on 28.2.2009. Before taking bank into liq1uidation, bank had filed recovery applications for seeking recovery certificates U/s.101 of the Act before Opponent No.7 on 28.1.2009 against Opponent No.1 to 6. 2 The Opponent No.7 passed order on 30.6.2009. The board of liquidator was engaged to collect the date from the various branches in respect of deposits to claim DICGS claim within stipulated period. Therefore the liquidator has not noticed the order dated 30.6.2009 and for this reason the delay is caused to file revision application. I find that the applicant bank has given reason for condonation of delay. Therefore there is no intentional delay. The recovery is huge one and therefore if the matter is decided on merit by taking liberal view by condoning delay, no harm will be caused to either side.” 2. Mr.Datar submitted that Mr.V.P.Patil, officiating as the Chairman of Board of Liquidators of the 1st Respondent was not authorised to file revision application as also the application praying for condonation of delay. In fact, the said contention was specifically raised in reply filed on behalf of the petitioners. He invited my attention to paragraph No.5 of the reply dated 7.8.2010. However, while passing the impugned order, the Divisional Joint Registrar has not dealt with this point at all. He further submitted that at any rate, no sufficient case is made out for condoning the delay. 3. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. It is not in dispute that Mr.V.P.Patil who was working as the District Deputy Registrar was appointed as the Official Liquidator and was officiating as the Chairman of the 3 Board of Liquidators of Vasantdada Shetkari Sahakari Bank Limited. Having regard to Section 103(2), (3), (4) and Section 105(a) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, prima-facie, the official liquidator is authorised to institute legal proceedings on behalf of the Society in the name of his office. However, I am not recording any positive finding on this point. It would be open to the petitioners to agitate this issue in the revision application. At the same time, it would be open to the official liquidator to substantiate that he is duly authorised to file revision application. In view of that it is not possible to accept the submission made by the learned counsel that Mr.V.P.Patil was not authorised to file application for condonation of delay. The impugned order is discretionary in nature whereby the Divisional Joint Registrar has condoned the delay of 186 days caused in filing the revision application. In my opinion, it does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. 4. Petition fails and therefore the same is dismissed. All the contentions of merits are expressly kept open. (R.G.KETKAR, J.)