1 Wp6754.10 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6754 OF 2010 Ashok M. Karode. .. Petitioner Vs Marol Nand-Dham Udyog Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri Vaibhav Sugdare i/by Shri A.S. Potnis for the Petitioner. Shri Aniket Nikam i/by Shri N.S. Parkhe for Respondent No.2. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 5TH OCTOBER, 2010 P.C: . On 3rd September, 2010, submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner were heard. Taken up for final disposal. 2. The challenge in this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 11th June, 2010 passed by the learned Member of the Co-operative Appellate Court by which the application for condonation of delay filed by the Petitioner has been rejected. 3. With a view to appreciate the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, it will be necessary to advert 2 Wp6754.10 to the facts of the case. The 2nd Respondent is the original disputant who filed a dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). An application for interim relief was filed by the 2nd Respondent. On the said application at Exhibit-5, the learned Judge of the Co-operative Court passed an order dated 24th December, 2009 granting interim relief which had the effect of staying the election of the Petitioner as an elected member. There was a delay in preferring an appeal and accordingly an application for condonation of delay was made seeking condonation of delay of 15 days. The application was contested by the 2nd Respondent. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected. 4. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that sufficient cause was made out in the application for condonation of delay. He pointed out that the order impugned was passed on 24th December, 2009 and the appeal was preferred by the Petitioner in March, 2010 along with delay condonation application dated 5th April, 2010. He pointed out that Paragraph 3 of the application sufficiently explains the delay of 15 days. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd Respondent pointed out that there was hardly any explanation for condonation of delay. He pointed out that the Petitioner has come out with a false case that he became aware of the impugned order in the middle of February, 2010. He 3 Wp6754.10 pointed out that the Petitioner was present in the meeting held on 4th January, 2010 and in the minutes of the meeting a clear reference was made to the order of interim relief. He submitted that the proceedings of the said meeting itself indicate that the Petitioner was fully aware of the order dated 24th December, 2009 inasmuch as in the minutes, it is recorded that the Petitioner may challenge the order by preferring an appeal. He submitted that a clear false statement was made in the application for condonation of delay and, therefore, the Appellate Court was justified in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. 6. The order impugned has been passed on 24th December, 2009. The application for certified copy of the order was made on 10th March, 2010. The certified copy of the order was received on 11th March, 2010 and the appeal was filed on 12th March, 2010. In Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the application for condonation of delay, the Petitioner has stated thus:- “2. I say that I have filed Appeal in this Hon’ble Court for challenging the order dated 24.12.2009 passed by the Hon’ble Judge, Cooperative Court, Mumbai. I say even though the order is passed on 24.12.2009 the Hon’ble Judge has signed the said order on 14.01.2010. I say therefore I was under impression that period of limitation start from 14.01.2010. 3. I say in the lower court other Advocate was there who was appearing for the society and other elected committee members. From him I came to know about the passing of the order sometime in the middle of the February.” 4 Wp6754.10 7. The statement made in Paragraph 3 will have to be understood in the context of what is stated in paragraph 2. In paragraph 2, it is stated that thought the order was passed on 24th December, 2009, the same was signed on 14th January, 2010. As stated earlier, the appeal was preferred on 12th March, 2010. There was a delay of few days in preferring the appeal. The order impugned was of a drastic nature which has a result of staying the election of the Petitioner as an elected member. The Apex Court has repeatedly held that a liberal and justice oriented approach will have to be adopted while deciding an application for condonation of delay. In the present case, considering the length of delay, the Appellate Court ought to have condoned the delay subject to payment of heavy costs. Today, the Advocate for the Petitioner has handed over a Demand Draft of Rs.20,000/- drawn in favour of the 2nd Respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd Respondent has accepted the same without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the 2nd Respondent. 8. Hence, I pass the following order. (a) The impugned order dated 11th June, 2010 is quashed and set aside and the Misc. Application No.32 of 2010 is allowed subject to the condition of the Petitioner paying costs of Rs.20,000/- to the 2nd Respondent. The 5 Wp6754.10 amount of costs has been paid as mentioned in the body of the judgment. (b) The Petition is allowed in above terms. (A.S.OKA, J)