IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.7132 OF 2008. with CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13429 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7132 OF 2008. M/s Iceberg Refrigeration Co., through its Proprietor Pervez Ferozkhan Asadullah Khan. .... PETITIONER. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others. .... RESPONDENTS. ... Shri R.T. Nagargoje,, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. V.A. Shinde, A.G.P. for State. Shri A.R. Joshi, Advocate for R.Nos.4 and 5. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE: 01st OCTOBER, 2009. PER COURT: 1. This petition takes exception to the order dated 14.10.2005 issuing recovery certificate under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, referred to as the said Act) by the respondent no.2 and the order dated 11.11.2008 passed by the respondent no.2 rejecting the application of the petitioner for condonation of delay caused in filing Revision Application under Section 154 of the said Act. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 11.11.2008 rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing revision application is passed by the concerned authority without looking into the explanation offered by the present petitioner in the application for condonation of delay. According to the learned Counsel mere perusal of the contents of the application would show that satisfactory explanation was offered before the revisional authority in support of prayer for condonation of delay. The revisional authority respondent no. 2, without properly appreciating the contents of the application, rejected the application for condonation of delay. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the said order is required to be interfered with by this Court. The learned Counsel further submitted that what was challenged in the revision was the order passed by the Taluka Deputy Registrar granting Recovery Certificate under Section 101 of the said Act. Therefore,the learned Counsel would submit that both the orders are required to be interfered with by setting aside the same. 3. The learned Counsel for respondents 4 and 5 submitted that the petitioner was well aware about the order dated 14.10.2005 passed by the Dy. Registrar granting Recovery Certificate U/s 101 of the said Act since he did participate in the proceedings and not only that, a lawyer was engaged on his behalf. Therefore, the learned Counsel for respondents 4 and 5 would submit that from the date of order i.e. 14.10.2005, the petitioner was well aware about the said order and, therefore, the petitioner should have taken appropriate steps to file revision under Section 154 of the said Act well within time. The Counsel invited my attention to the impugned order and submitted that by giving cogent reasons the application has been rejected. 4. It is not in dispute that the order dated 14.10.2005 can be challenged by way of revision under Section 154 of the said Act and rightly so, the petitioner challenged the said order by way of filing revision application along with application for condonation of delay and, therefore, any adjudication on merits by this Court so far as order dated 14.10.2005 is concerned, is not required to be dealt with. The order dated 11.11.2008 is passed by the authority refusing to entertain the application for condonation of delay with cogent reasons. The authority has recorded that there was about 24 months delay in filing the revision application, which is not explained properly by the petitioner herein. After-all, it is for the concerned Court or the authority, as the case may be, to come to the conclusion on the basis of explanation offered by the concerned party in support of the application for condonation of delay. In the present case, the authority has properly appreciated the contents of the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay and held that there is inordinate delay of 24 months in filing the revision application and which cannot be condoned by any stretch of imagination. It would not be out of place to refer to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for respondents that the property which was seized has already been auctioned and the amount in pursuant to the order dated 14.10.2005 is recovered. He further submitted that sale deed is also executed. In my considered view, no interference is called for in the impugned order dated 11.11.2008 and since the order dated 14.10.2005 has been already implemented and executed by auctioning the property and recovering the amount, no further adjudication of this writ petition can be gone into in extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, writ petition is rejected. Civil Application also stands disposed of. [ S.S. SHINDE, J ] ... PLK/#