-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8895 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 8895 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 8895 OF 2007 Shri Kishor Kutandi .. Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. --- Mrs. Seema S. Singh for the Petitioner. Ms. V. Mhaispurkar, AGP for the Respondents. --- CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 21ST JANUARY, 2008. DATED : 21ST JANUARY, 2008. DATED : 21ST JANUARY, 2008. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. :- . Mentioned. Not on Board. Taken up for admission forthwith by consent. 2. The order of the Revisional Authority, refusing to condone the delay has been challenged in this writ petition. 3. The petitioner had filed a revision application, challenging the recovery certificate under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. 4. It is not disputed that there is a delay in -: 2 :- filing the revision application. The reason seeking condonation of delay has been mentioned as the petitioner being unable to get any knowledge regarding issuance of certificate until the demand notice was serviced on him. In other words, the recovery certificate was issued without notice and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. It is only when the demand notice dated 16th November, 2004 was served, on that date the petitioner came to know that there is a debt recovery certificate which has been issued and in such circumstances the delay ought to have been condoned. It was also stated that the petitioner has deposited 50% of the recoverable amount under the recovery certificate. Hence, delay deserves to be condoned. 5. By the impugned order the Joint Registrar has refused to condone the delay. The Divisional Joint Registrar has observed that the delay is of two years and five months and there is no sufficient cause that has been set out for condoning the said delay. 6. In my view, perusal of the impugned order shows that the Divisional Joint Registrar has taken a hyper technical view of the matter. It is only when the petitioner attended the office of the Assistant -: 3 :- Registrar, after the demand notice was served, he came to know about the issuance of the recovery certificate against him. Now the petitioner having shown his bonafides, the Divisional Joint Registrar ought to have condoned the delay. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner states that due compliance has been made with the directions issued by this court on 4th of January, 2008. The petitioner is also willing to abide by the restraint order passed by this court. 7. In the light of the above circumstances and in view of the peculiar facts of this case, the delay deserves to be condoned. Accordingly , the same is condoned. The order under challenge is quashed and set aside. The Revision Application No. 102 of 2006 be now heard in accordance with law. The petition is allowed accordingly. 8. The amount of Rs. One lakh directed by this court in its order dated 4th January, 2008 if deposited by Thursday, the 24th of January, 2008 shall be accepted by the 5th Respondent. Time for the same is extended accordingly. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J.) -: 4 :- .....