( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6546 OF 2010 Sow. Jaya Dilip Patil PETITIONER VERSUS District Deputy Registrar, Coop. Societies, Jalgaon and others RESPONDENTS .... Mr. B.S. Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, Addl. Govt. Pleader for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. V.D. Hon, advocate for the respondents No. 3 and 4. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 17th August, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. The dismissal of application for restoration of the proceedings alongwith delay condonation application as per communication dated 06-07-2010 is being challenged by the petitioner. It appears that proceedings under section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 were initiated against the petitioner. The communication reveals that on 25th April, 2008, the petitioner had filed her reply/explanation. ( 2 ) The restoration application was filed by the petitioner on the ground that opportunity of hearing was not given to her. She also filed separate application for condonation of delay. It was contended that she was not informed about the status of the proceedings before the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies. It appears that the recovery certificate was issued on 29th August, 2008. The restoration application was moved after about a couple of years vide restoration application No. 1/2010. It appears further that this step was taken after publication of a notice regarding the auction proceedings. Needless to say, prima facie, it appears that such restoration application and delay condonation application was moved in order to thort the auction proceedings and to gain some time or to avoid the adverse effects of the recovery certificate. Considering the manner in which the application is move, it was, however, necessary to examine the contents of the delay condonation application and to decide it on merits without simply informing the petitioner as stated in the communication dated 06-07-2010. The learned Assistant Registrar did not pass any speaking order as regards the merits of the matter and, therefore, it is necessary to remand the matter for afresh hearing. ( 3 ) 3. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, is directed to hear the petitioner and the other side on merits while deciding the restoration application and the delay condonation application after considering the grounds stated in both the applications together or separately, as the case may be. The interim relief, if any, may be sought from the competent authority as this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits. Petition is accordingly disposed of. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp6546-10