( 1 ) wp555.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 555 OF 2011 1. Tuljabhawani Mastya Vyawasayik Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., Through its Chairman, Balaji s/o. Sanjay Shinde, Age. 22 years, Occ. Fisherman, R/o. Nagulgaon, Tq. Kallamb, Dist. Osmanabad. .. Petitioner VERSUS 1. Chandrakant s/o. Venkat Kapase, Age. 35 years, Occ. Agri., R/o. Gorgaon, Tq. Kallamb, Dist. Osmanabad. The Chief Promoter of the proposed Malik Saheb Mastya Vyavsayik Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. .. Respondents 2. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Dairy) Osmanabad,Tq.& Dist.Osmanabad. 3. The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Fishery) Maharashtra State, Mumbai. Mr. A.L. Tikle, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr. S.J. Salunke, Advocate for respondent No.1; Mr. V.G. Shelke, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 2 & 3. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 15.09.2011 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties. 2. This writ petition filed under Articles 226 & ( 2 ) wp555.11 227 of the Constitution of India is challenging the order dated 27th December, 2010, condoning the delay in filing of the appeal No. 25 of 2010 of respondent No.1. The order was passed by the Dy. Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Fisheries). 3. The facts leading to the litigation in short can be narrated as under :- 4. There is an irrigation tank at village Nagulgaon in Osmanabad district. It is a tank having area of about 39 hectare. For fishing business in this tank the members of the petitioner society came together and got it registered. The registration was granted them on 6th November, 2009 by respondent No.2 : the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society. Thereafter, on or about 28th May, 2010, respondent No.1 and others proposed to register a separate co-operative society for conducting business of finishing in the same tank. Their application was rejected on 31st May, 2010 by respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 being a Chief Promoter of proposed society then filed Appeal No. 25 of 2010 before the learned Dy. Registrar. In the appeal memo, instead of challenging the order dated 31st May, 2010 only, he challenged even the order dated 6th November, 2009 granting registration to the petitioner society. He pointed out that he made an application for condonation of delay of 26 days which had occurred for challenging ( 3 ) wp555.11 the order dated 31st May, 2010, rejecting the proposals for registration. The learned Dy. Registrar condoned the delay recording reasons. However, since the appeal is now challenging two different orders passed on two different occasions, the petitioner apprehended that the Dy. Registrar might entertain the appeal also for challenging the order dated 6th November, 2009, granting registration to the petitioner/society. It seems, the learned Dy. Registrar was not made aware that in one appeal respondent No.1 could not have challenged two different orders. Had this been done, the learned Dy. Registrar would have certainly directed respondent No.1 to file separate appeal for challenging the earlier order dated 6th November, 2009. I think if that was not done earlier, it should be done now. The petition, therefore, should succeed by following order. 5. The petition is allowed. The impugned order shall be applicable only to the challenge of respondent No.1 in respect of order dated 31st May, 2010 and shall not be good for his appeal for challenging the order dated 6th November, 2009. Respondent No.1 is directed to file a separate appeal, if he and his members seek to challenge registration by the petitioner society vide order dated 6th November, 2009. If such appeal is made, the same shall be considered in accordance with law including the question of limitation while deciding the ( 4 ) wp555.11 application seeking condonation of delay. The time lost in this petition may be considered in accordance with law. If the separate appeal is filed challenging the order dated 6th November, 2009, both the appeals as far as possible shall be decided at one time. Rule made absolute accordingly. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] snk/2011/SEP11/wp555.11ok