1 wp3970­11 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3970 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3963 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3964 OF 2011 Damaji Hamal Sahakari Majur Sanstha Mydt., Solapur .. Petitioner V/s. The Assistant Registrar, Co­op. Societies, Solapur & Ors. .. Respondents ..... Mr. Nitin Jamdar for the petitioner in all petitions. Mrs. Neha Palshikar­Bhide, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 3 in all petitions. Mr. Sugandh B. Deshmukh for respondent No.4 in all petitions. ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 12, 2011. P.C.: Notice for final disposal was issued by this Court. 2. With a view to appreciate the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, a reference will have to be made to the facts of the case. For the sake of convenience, a reference is made to the facts of the case in writ petition No.3970 of 2011. According to the case of the petitioner in writ petition No.3970 of 2011, the petitioner society is of Hamals and Majurs who carry on the work of loading and unloading of 2 wp3970­11 goods. According to the case of the petitioner, a person to whom the concerned Agricultural Produce Market Committee issues licence can be made member of the said society. It is alleged that from the year 1997, the petitioner society has been awarded tenders for loading and unloading of the goods and stocks. 3. The petitioner has placed reliance on the Government Resolution dated 24th December, 2004 which lays down guidelines for registration of Hamals and Majurs Co­operative Societies. It is contended that the said government resolution provides that a Majur Co­operative Society should not be allowed to be converted into the Hamal and Majur Co­operative Society and if such conversion is to be permitted, the Authority must satisfy that the conversion conforms with the norms provided for establishing a new Co­operative society. It is contended that the Government resolution makes a provisions that the existing society should be heard before allowing such a conversion. 4. It is pointed out that the first respondent permitted the respondent No.4 Society to convert said Society from Majur Co­ operative Society to Hamal and Majur Society. It is contended that the order was passed without giving notice to the petitioner 3 wp3970­11 which is an existing society. An Appeal was preferred in the year 2009 by the petitioner for challenging the order passed by the first respondent. The Appeal was dismissed by the impugned order dated 30th April, 2010 on the ground of delay. A Revision Application was preferred by the petitioner under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co­operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) before the State Government for challenging the order of Appellate Authority. The revision application has been dismissed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon a decision in the case of The Akola Zilla Parishad Primary Teachers' Co­operative Credit Society Ltd. V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. [2008(6) ALL MR 141]. He submitted that as the petitioner had no knowledge about the orders passed by the first respondent, there was a delay in preferring an Appeal which ought to have been condoned. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent supported the impugned Judgment and order. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Sitappa Rama Patil V/s. Sattur Laxman Kole & Ors. [2005 (2) Bom. C.R. 419]. He submitted that as there was no application for condonation of delay, the Appeal ought not to be entertained. He submitted that by communication dated 15th June, 2010, the registration of the 4 wp3970­11 petitioner has been cancelled. The learned AGP supported the impugned order. 5. I have considered the submissions. It appears that along with the Appeals preferred by the petitioner, there was no application made for condonation of delay. In paragraph No.8 of the Memorandum of Appeal, it is contended by the petitioner that impugned order dated 29th March, 2009 was never communicated to the petitioner and only after the petitioner become aware of the said order, the application for certified copy was made and the Appeal was filed. In the grounds of the Appeal, it is contended that the impugned order has been passed without hearing the petitioner. 6. The Appellate Authority found that there was a delay in preferring the Appeal. However, without there being an application for condonation of delay, the Appellate Authority proceeded to consider the prayer for condonation of delay and ultimately dismissed the Appeal by holding that there was no ground for condonation of delay. 8. The Appellate Authority ought to have granted a reasonable time to the petitioner to take out a separate application for condonation of delay so that the case made out for condonation of delay by the petitioner society could have 5 wp3970­11 been dealt with even by the contesting respondents. Without adopting the said course, the prayer for condonation of delay has been rejected on merits. Hence, there is no option for this Court but to set aside the impugned orders by granting the petitioner permission to file application for condonation of delay. 9. Hence, I pass the following order: :: O R D E R :: i. The impugned Judgments and orders are quashed and set aside and the Appeals preferred by the petitioner are restored to the file of the Appellate Authority. ii. It will be open for the petitioner to take out applications for condonation of delay within a period of eight weeks from today. If separate applications for condonation of delay are not filed within the stipulated time, the Appellate Authority is free to dismiss the Appeals for non prosecution. iii. If applications are filed within the stipulated time, the Appellate Authority after giving an opportunity to the contesting respondents to file a reply, shall decide the said applications as expeditiously as possible. 6 wp3970­11 iv. All contentions of the parties on merit of said applications are kept open. v. Petitions are disposed of on the above terms with no order as to costs. (A.S.OKA, J.)