(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Writ Petition No. 2418 of 2009 Smt. Pratibha w/o. Pradip Ghanekar .. Petitioner. versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Cooperation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, & 4 Others. .. Respondents. .................. Mr. V.L. Dhoble, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.M. Shinde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 3. Mr. M.R. Chhallani, Advocate, for respondent nos.4 and 5. .................. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 22ND JUNE 2009. COURT’S ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 25th March 2009, passed by the respondent no.2 i.e. (2) Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Aurangabad, in Revision Application No. 15/2009, thereby rejecting the application for condonation of delay and the revision itself. 2. Mr. V.L. Dhoble, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the respondent no.2 has grossly erred in deciding the application for condonation of delay, as well as, revision application by the same order. 3. Perusal of the record would reveal that in so far as the order at Exhibit "D" (page 30 of the petition) is concerned, the same is on the application for condonation of delay. However, in the said revision, the order challenged is dated 27th September 2006 passed by the competent authority under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. In the said proceedings, the respondent no.2 found that there was no justifiable reason for condoning the delay which was of two years and, as such, rejected the application for condonation of delay. 4. In so far as order at Exhibit "D" (page 34 of the petition) is concerned, it is passed on Revision Application No. 15/2009. In the said proceedings, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16th February 2009 passed by the Recovery Officer in the recovery proceedings. As such, the contention raised by the petitioner is without substance. 5. No perversity could be found with the approach adopted by the authorities below, so as to warrant interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (3) 6. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ...................... bgp/2418wp