1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 672 OF 2010 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 704 OF 2010 PROPOSED SOCIETY NAMELY KALPTARU MATSYA SAHAKARI SANSTHA LTD. . -: versus :- ASSTT. REGISTRAR, CO-OP. SOCIETIES AND ANOTHER. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 705 OF 2010 AND WRIT PETITION NO.709 OF 2010 PROPOSED SOCIETY NAMELY SAMTA MATSYA SAHAKARI SANSTHA LTD. . -: versus :- ASSTT. REGISTRAR, CO-OP. SOCIETIES AND ANOTHER. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri S.K.Tambde, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri T.R.Kankale, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 & 2. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : APRIL 26, 2010. 1. In Writ Petition No.672/2010 order passed by respondent No.2 refusing to condone delay of one year and eleven months in filing appeal against order of respondent No.1 refusing to register their co-operative society is challenged. 2. In remaining two writ petitions refusal to condone the same delay whereby registration was given to another society namely Matoshree Matsya Vyavasaya Sahakari Sanstha Limited, (respondent No.2 in Writ Petition 2 No.704/2010) and Yogiraj Matsya Vyavasaya Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit (respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No.705/2010) and refusing permission to the petitioner to open bank account is assailed. In Writ Petition No.709 of 2010 another proposed society namely, Samta Matsya Sahakari Sanstha has challenged order of respondent No.2 refusing to condone delay in filing appeal before it against the order of respondent No.1 whereby its proposal to open Bank account is rejected. 3. Advocate Shri Tambde contends that in all maters fishermen passed a resolution and then submitted proper proposal. As the copies of documents were not received from the office of respondent No.1 no timely steps could be taken. He contends that approach of respondent No.2-District Deputy Registrar is too technical and cannot be sustained. 4. The learned A.G.P. on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 supports the impugned order. Advocate Shri Vairagade, on behalf of the concerned societies, has filed reply affidavit opposing the petitions. The learned A.G.P., as also Advocate Shri Vairagade, argued that the delay has not been explained satisfactorily as opportunity was available to the petitioners. Interest of new societies is already created and their members have also started fishing operation. Advocate Shri Vairagade states that members of both the proposed societies (petitioners before this Court) can become members of already registered societies of fishermen in accordance with law. 3 5. It is apparent that the societies have already been registered and those societies have also started operating. Thus, if delay is condoned, rights already vested, are required to be divested and hence, the prayer for condonation of delay is required to be looked into more cautiously. The petitioner had an opportunity before respondent No.2 to explain delay. It appears that correspondence stated to be the reason for condonation of delay or then the necessary documents to show that copies of orders were not furnished by respondent No.1 and the same were made available by some other agency, were not made available to the office of respondent No.2. 6. In this situation, considering the controversy involved in the matter the order cannot be stated to be erroneous or perverse. The petitioners are assailing registration in the interest of their members i.e. fishermen and those fishermen can also become members of the societies which are already registered according to law. I, therefore, do not find that any prejudice is being caused to any petitioner. 7. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction. The petitions are, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RR