1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 2805/2010 (Soma Rudaji Mandawkar VERSUS Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-op. Societies, Nagpur & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri G.G. Bade, counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. I.L. Bodade, A.G.P. for the R-1 & 2. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 8 , 2011 . By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nagpur on 12.05.2010 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the revision application. The applicant challenged the revenue recovery certificate issued by the Assistant Registrar on 21.11.2005 in a revision before the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nagpur. As there was a delay of nearly five years in filing the revision application, the petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision application. It is necessary to note that the revenue recovery certificate was issued on 21.11.2005. It is the case of the petitioner in the application that he did not receive any notice in the proceedings under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 from the Office of the Assistant Registrar and, therefore, he was not able to appear before the Assistant Registrar. The petitioner stated in the application that the petitioner became aware of the order 2 passed under Section 101 of the Act of 1960 dated 21.11.2005 after his tractor and trolley were seized on 13.07.2007. Thereafter since the Bank published a public auction notice on 30.11.2008, according to the petitioner, he filed proceedings before the Cooperative Court on 31.12.2008. Since the dispute was wrongly filed before the Cooperative Court, it is the case of the petitioner that he withdrew the dispute on 06.03.2010 and filed the revision application along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision application, on 20.03.2010. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documents on record, the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nagpur rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the revision application. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nagpur, found on perusal of record that the petitioner was duly served with the notice in the Section 101 proceedings before the Assistant Registrar and the petitioner had acknowledged the receipt of the notice dated 05.07.2005. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nagpur found that in spite of receipt of the notice of the proceedings before the Assistant Registrar, the petitioner did not appear before the Assistant Registrar and falsely stated that he became aware of the proceedings and the order dated 21.11.2005 after his tractor and trolley were seized on 13.07.2007. It is necessary to note that though, even according to the petitioner, he became aware of the passing of the order dated 21.11.2005, on 13.07.2007, he did not challenge the revenue recovery certificate in any proceedings till he approached the Cooperative Court by filing 3 a dispute on 31.12.2008. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nagpur rightly held that the petitioner cannot take advantage of the fact that he had approached the Cooperative Court on 31.12.2008 and withdrew the dispute on 06.03.2010 and, therefore, the delay in filing the revision application should be condoned. The delay in filing the revision application is approximately of five years and the petitioner has not satisfactorily explained the delay in filing the revision application except the fact that he had wrongly filed the dispute before the Cooperative Court on 31.12.2008 and the same was withdrawn on 06.03.2010. The petitioner has not explained as to what action was taken by the petitioner between 13.07.2007 to 31.12.2008, i.e. the date of filing of the dispute before the Cooperative Court. Even otherwise, the statement of fact made in the application, of not being served in the proceedings before the Assistant Registrar was found to be false and it was found by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nagpur that the notice was duly served on the petitioner and he had also acknowledged the same in July-2005. The reasons recorded by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nagpur for rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the revision application, appear to be just and proper and the impugned order cannot be interfered with, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. Hence, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE