wp8680-11.sxw 1 spb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8680 OF 2011 Laxmi Govind Sada Co-op. Hsg.Society Ltd., ... Petitioners. V/s. 1. Mr. Jayant Madhusudan Joshi & Ors. ... Respondents. --- None appears for the Petitioners. Ms. Snehal Ratnakar for the Respondent No.1. Mr. R.M. Patne, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Mr. Shashikant P. Ghorpade, District Deputy Registrar, Co-op.Societies (3), Mumbai. --- CORAM:- G.S. GODBOLE, J. DATED :- 23rd NOVEMBER, 2011. P.C. : 1 Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties. Ms. Snehal Ratnakar, Advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and learned AGP waives service of Rule on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 2 This Petition was earlier heard by me on 17.11.2011 and was adjourned to 24th November, 2011 by passing following order : “1. Heard Mr. Khanchandani for the Petitioner, Mr. Pandit for Respondent No.1 and Mr. Patne for Respondent Nos.2 & 3. Prima facie the impugned order has been passed in complete violation of rules of the natural justice and provisions of Section 154 of the M.C.S., Act, 1960. wp8680-11.sxw 2 The concerned District Deputy Registrar has not even bothered to issue an official notice to the Respondent in the Revision, who is the Petitioner herein and has blindly accepted the statement of the Advocate for the Respondent No.1 that notice was served on the Society without even bothering to see whether the said person Pradeep Rane had authority to serve any such notice. So also, by the same judgment even delay in filing the revision application has been condoned. It is well settled that condonation of delay in filing revision application is a separate proceeding under Sub Section 3 and both proceedings namely delay application and the main revision application could not have been disposed off by common judgment. To be placed high on board on Thursday, 24th November, 2011, under caption of Part heard. Shri S.P. Ghorpade, D.D.R. Cooperative Societies (3), Mumbai shall remain personally present in this Court on that day. Mr. Patne learned AGP to communicate this order to Mr. S.P. Ghorpade. ( G.S. GODBOLE, J.) ” 3 Yesterday, Mr. Patne, learned AGP mentioned this Petition for preponment of date since Shri Ghorpade, D.D.R. Co-op. Societies (3), Mumbai, who was directed to remain present had some personal difficulty on 24.11.2011. Consequently, the hearing was fixed today. When the Petition is called out, Mr. D.L. Khanchandani for the Petitioner is not present but apparently no written notice is served on him regarding pre-ponment of the date. Mr. Patne, AGP appears for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and Ms. Snehal Ratnakar appears for Respondent No.1. Shri S.P. Ghorpade is wp8680-11.sxw 3 personally present in the court and assures the Court that henceforth quasi judicial proceedings will not be decided unless the concerned party is duly served by notice through his Office and henceforth the composite order about condoning the delay, allowing / dismissing the Revision or the Appeal on merits will not be passed. He has also tendered apology for passing the impugned order by relying on the statement of the Advocate for the Respondent No.1 to the effect that the Petitioner Society was served. This apology is accepted. 4 In view of the fact that the impugned order has been passed without service of any notice on the Petitioner and on that ground alone the impugned Judgment and Order dated 8.9.2011 passed by Shri S.P. Ghorpade, D.D.R, Co-operative Societies (3), Mumbai in Revision Application No. 97/2011 is hereby quashed and set aside. The said Revision Application and the Application for condonation of delay in filing the Revision Application are restored. The notice on Application for condonation of the delay and the Revision Application shall be served by the Office of the D.D.R.,Co-op. Societies (3), Mumbai on the Petitioner. Initially the Application for condonation of the delay shall be taken up for hearing and only if delay is condoned Revision can be heard on merits. 5 Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. The Writ Petition is disposed off. [G. S. GODBOLE, J.]