wp8.11 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8 OF 2011 Mohan Hari Paithankar ...Petitioner Versus Manager, Jankalyan Urban Co-operative Credit Society Bhusawal and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. B.S. Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioner Mr. A.D. Shinde, advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for respondent No.4 ..... CORAM: B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 21st FEBRUARY, 2011 PER COURT:- 1 Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally. 2 Advocate Mr. Deshmukh for the petitioner states that the delay has not been condoned merely because delay is admitted in the matter. Shri Shinde, advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 invites attention to the reply, which he has filed. He states that the reason pressed into service for explaining the delay are not correct. The wp8.11 -2- quasi judicial authority like Divisional Joint Registrar has looked into that reply, applied its mind and found that the delay cannot be condoned. He attempts to demonstrate that such application of mind is apparent from para 2 of the impugned order. 3 Learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent No.4 is also supporting the impugned order. 4 Perusal of the impugned order shows that reasons for rejecting the prayer for condonation of delay are given in paragraph ‘2’ only. Only reason is as delay of 762 days is admitted, application for its condonation needs to be rejected. Explanation for delay is not looked into and even the grounds put up by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to oppose the prayer for such condonation are not evaluated. As there is delay, there is prayer for its condonation and the condonation is possible only if the reasons assigned by petitioner are found to be just and sufficient. There has to be therefore, application of mind qua the reasons pressed into service by the petitioner for seeking condonation of delay. Grounds raised in defence by respondents are also important for such evaluation. 5 The impugned order cannot be sustained, as it constitutes refusal to exercise the jurisdiction. The order dated 27.9.2010 is wp8.11 -3- therefore, quashed and set aside. Proceedings in revision application No. R-NIL of 2010 between the parties are restored to the file of Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nashik for taking fresh decision in accordance with law after giving parties the reasonable opportunity of hearing. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. 6 Interim order granted by this Court on 6.1.2011 to continue till 31.3.2011. The parties are directed to appear before the Divisional Joint Registrar on 28.2.2011 and the said authority shall endeavour to decide the prayer for condonation of delay as early as possible and in any case till 31.3.2011. ( B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) rlj/