1 90 wp.5252.11 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5252 OF 2011 Hemant Anant Vartak and another. ... Petitioners Versus The District Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies and others. ... Respondents ----- Mr. S.R.Ronghe for the Petitioners. Mr. S.D.Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. E.S.Sabnis for Respondent No.3. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 13 th September, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, the learned AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3. 2 Taken up for final disposal. The Respondent Nos.4 and 5 may not be the necessary parties. 2 90 wp.5252.11 3 For challenging a recovery certificate issued under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) against the Petitioners, they filed a revision application before the Divisional Joint Registrar under Section 154 of the said Act. There was a delay of about eight to nine months in filing the revision application. Therefore, an application for condonation of delay was made. By the impugned order, the said application for condonation of delay has been rejected. In the impugned order, the Revisional Authority observed that the delay was in fact of one year and eight months. 4 It is not disputed that compliance has been made by the Applicant with the requirements of Sub-Section (2-A) of Section 154 of the said Act. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners has made various submissions on merits of the application for condonation of delay. However, perusal of the application for condonation of delay shows that the same is very cryptic. There are averments made 3 90 wp.5252.11 running only into six lines and a vague prayer is made that the delay eight to nine months be condoned. The Revisional Authority has come to the conclusion that the recovery certificate was issued on 23 rd July, 2008 and therefore, there is a delay of one year and eight months. 5 As the Petitioners have deposited 50% of the recoverable dues payable under the recovery certificate, an opportunity deserves to be granted to the Petitioner to file an additional affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay. The Petitioners will have to pays costs to the Respondent No.3 quantified at Rs.5,000/- 6 Hence, I pass the following order: i. The impugned judgment and order dated 29 th March, 2011 is quashed and set aside. ii. The revision application and the application for condonation of delay made therein are restored to the file of the Revisional Authority ; iii. The Petitioners shall pay costs of Rs.5,000/- to 4 90 wp.5252.11 the Respondent No.3 – Society within a period of four weeks from today ; vi. It will be open for the Petitioners to file additional affidavit and the additional documents in support of the application for condonation of delay ; v. The additional affidavit and the documents, if any, shall be filed within a period of six weeks from today ; vi. The Revisional Authority shall decide the application for condonation of delay afresh as expeditiously as possible ; vii. The ad-interim relief granted by this Court on 12 th July, 2011 shall continue to operate till the disposal of the application for condonation of delay ; viii. The Writ Petition is partly allowed on above terms ; ix. Payment of costs shall be condition 5 90 wp.5252.11 precedent ;and x. The Revisional Authority to act upon the authenticated copy of this order. [ A.S.OKA, J ]