1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6516 OF 2009 Shri Balasaheb Shivappa Tanange Age 46 yrs., Occ: Electrical, R/o. Shamraonagar, (Behind Hotel Asuba), District: Sangli ...Petitioners. v. 1 Janlaxmi Nagri Sahakari Path Sanstha Maryadit, Sangli O/t. 22, Chapharkar Complex, Maruti Road, Sangli, Through its President, Administrative Board, Shri Baswraj Ganpatrao Patil, Age 54, Occupation: Service, Assistant Registrar Co-op. Society, Sangli 2 Deputy Registrar Co-op. Societies, Miraj, Market Yard, Miraj ...Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6517 OF 2009 Sou Ranjana Balaso Tanange Age: 40 yrs., Occ: Household, R/o. Shamraonagar, 100 ft., Dist. Sangli ..Petitioner v. 1 Janlaxmi Nagri Sahakari Path Sanstha Maryadit, Sangli O/t. 22, Chapharkar Complex, Maruti Road, Sangli, Through its President, Administrative Board, 2 Shri Baswraj Ganpatrao Patil, Age 54, Occupation: Service, Assistant Registrar Co-op. Society, Sangli 2 Deputy Registrar Co-op. Societies, Miraj, Market Yard, Miraj ...Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6518 OF 2009 Nandkumar Balkrishna Mali Age 52 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Kupwad Road, District: Sangli ...Petitioner. v. 1 Janlaxmi Nagri Sahakari Path Sanstha Maryadit, Sangli O/t. 22, Chapharkar Complex, Maruti Road, Sangli, Through its President, Administrative Board, Shri Baswraj Ganpatrao Patil, Age 54, Occupation: Service, Assistant Registrar Co-op. Society, Sangli 2 Deputy Registrar Co-op. Societies, Miraj, Market Yard, Miraj ...Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6519 OF 2009 Shri Shrichandra Rizumal Aahuja ..Petitioner. Age: 60 yrs., Occ: Contractor, R/o. Shamraonagar, Near Janlaxmi Path Sastha, Dist: Sangli v. 1 Janlaxmi Nagri Sahakari Path Sanstha Maryadit, Sangli 3 O/t. 22, Chapharkar Complex, Maruti Road, Sangli, Through its President, Administrative Board, Shri Baswraj Ganpatrao Patil, Age 54, Occupation: Service, Assistant Registrar Co-op. Society, Sangli 2 Deputy Registrar Co-op. Societies, Miraj, Market Yard, Miraj ...Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6531 OF 2009 Abdulrazak Rajesaheb Makandar Age 40 yrs., Occ: Business, R/o. 100 ft. Road, Sangli, Dist. Sangli ..Petitioner. v. 1 Janlaxmi Nagri Sahakari Path Sanstha Maryadit, Sangli O/t. 22, Chapharkar Complex, Maruti Road, Sangli, Through its President, Administrative Board, Shri Baswraj Ganpatrao Patil, Age 54, Occupation: Service, Assistant Registrar Co-op. Society, Sangli 2 Deputy Registrar Co-op. Societies, Miraj, Market Yard, Miraj ...Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6532 OF 2009 Uday Balkrishna Mali Age 40 yrs., Occ: Business, R/o. Kupwad Road, New Old Railway Bridge, 4 Dist. Sangli ..Petitioner. v. 1 Janlaxmi Nagri Sahakari Path Sanstha Maryadit, Sangli O/t. 22, Chapharkar Complex, Maruti Road, Sangli, Through its President, Administrative Board, Shri Baswraj Ganpatrao Patil, Age 54, Occupation: Service, Assistant Registrar Co-op. Society, Sangli 2 Deputy Registrar Co-op. Societies, Miraj, Market Yard, Miraj ...Respondents. Mr.Umesh R. Mankapure, adv. For the Petitioners. Mr. S.D.Rayrikar, AGP For the Respondent No.2. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : 2nd February , 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 Notice was issued to the respondents clearly indicating that the petitions may be finally disposed at the admission stage. However, none appeared for the respondent no.1/Co-operative Society while the learned AGP appears for the Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies. 2 All these six petitions may be disposed off by the common judgment and order as they arise out of the common orders passed by the authorities. 5 3 Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. Perused the record. 4 Petitioners are the members of the respondent no.1-Society. Respondent No.1-Society filed applications before the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Society seeking recovery certificates under section 101 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 against the petitioners for the recovery of loan amount from them. However, by the reasoned order dated 10.2.2005 the Assistant Registrar refused to issue recovery certificates under Section 101 observing that the claims filed by the society were in dispute and that the society had failed to prove necessary documents of loans and he observed that the society should approach the Co-operative Court under Section 91 of the Co-operative Societies Act. After the applications for the recovery certificates were rejected, the Society again made a request to the Assistant Registrar and he reversed his own order and passed the order granting recovery certificates under Section 101. On 15.2.2005, petitioners approached the Assistant Registrar and pointed out that he had set aside his earlier order dated 10.2.2005 without hearing them and, therefore, ex-parte order granting recovery certificates should be set aside. Assistant Registrar was pleased to set aside his second order and the original order refusing 6 to grant recovery certificates was restored. Respondent No.2 Deputy Registrar came to be appointed as the Administrator of the respondent no.1/Society with effect from 3.11.2006. On 11.12.2008, he filed revision applications before the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Kolhapur against the orders of the Assistant Registrar refusing the recovery certificates. He also prayed condonation of delay of about three years and 7 months. In spite of objections taken by the petitioners, the Divisional Joint Registrar by the impugned order dated 22.5.2009 condoned the delay in filing the Revision Applications. Said order is challenged in the present petitions. 5 On perusal of the record, it appears that in the applications for condonation of delay, Deputy Registrar/Administrator had contended that he was appointed as an Administrator on 3.11.2006 and he was not aware till September, 2008 that the order granting recovery certificates was recalled by the Assistant Registrar. However, on perusal of the impugned order, which deals with the complete record, contention of the respondent no.2/Deputy Registrar that he was not aware till September, 2008 about the said order does not appear to be correct. The record reveals that on 9.5.2006 the Special Recovery Officer had issued notices to the petitioners for recovery of the amount based on the recovery 7 certificates, which were allegedly issued on the basis of second order. That notice was replied by the petitioners on 16.5.2006. In that reply petitioners clearly informed about what had happened on 10th February and 15th February, 2005 and also pointed out that the second order granting recovery certificates was revoked and the original order was restored by the Assistant Registrar and, therefore, there were no recovery certificates in existence and no amount could be recovered on the basis of such non-existing recovery certificates. It appears that in spite of this reply, Special Recovery Officer issued second notice on 3.1.2007; then the third notice was issued on 15.1.2007; fourth notice was issued on 14.9.2007 and the last notice was issued on 28.8.2008. Each of these notices was promptly and immediately replied by the petitioners pointing out the above facts. In view of this, it is clear that when the reply dated 16.5.2006 was sent by the petitioners in response to the notice dated 9.5.2006, Society had come to know that the order granting recovery certificates was revoked. From that date, Society should be presumed to have knowledge of the said order. Respondent No.2 Deputy Registrar himself was appointed as an Administrator on 3.11.2006 and the Special Recovery Officer was a subordinate in his own office. Second notice was issued on 3.1.2007. From this, it is clear that while the Deputy 8 Registrar was appointed as an administrator of the society about six months after the first notice was issued, all the remaining four notices were issued when he himself was administrator of the society. Therefore, there is a reason to believe that when the second notice dated 3.1.2007 and other subsequent notices were issued and duly replied, Deputy Registrar must have come to know about the revocation of the order granting recovery certificates. If not earlier, respondent no.2 was expected to have come to know about these facts on receipt of reply dated 15.1.2007 in response to the second notice dated 3.1.2007. It can not be believed that for about 1 and half years or more the Deputy Registrar , who was working as an Administrator of the Society would not be aware about the facts. Justification was not given as to why there was delay in filing Revision Applications atleast after January, 2007 onwards. 6 Taking into consideration the facts and the circumstances noted above, I find that the reasons given by the Deputy Registrar/Administrator for the purpose of condonation of delay could not be supported by the record. Divisional Joint Registrar observed that it was a question of finances of the society and, therefore, it was in the 9 interest of justice to condone the delay. In the original order, which was impugned before the Divisional Joint Registrar , it was clearly stated that the claim of the society was disputed and society had failed to prove documents of loan. In view of these circumstances, society was directed to file dispute under Section 91 of the Co-operative Societies Act. In fact, under the Co-operative Societies Act, there is no period of limitation when the dispute is between the Society and its members and, therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the society if it is required to file dispute against its members for recovery of its dues. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7 For the aforesaid reasons, all these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned order condoning the delay in filing the revision applications is hereby set aside. No order as to costs. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)