1 wp6106­11 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6106 OF 2011 Jaysing Balwant Chougule .. Petitioner V/s. The Special Recovery Officer, The Bhudargad Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd. & Ors. .. Respondents ..... Mr. V. B. Rajure for the petitioner. Mr. S. D. Rayrikar, AGP for the respondents. ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 6, 2011. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 24th April, 2008 passed under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Co­operative Societies Act, 1960 by preferring an Appeal before the State Government. By impugned Judgment and order dated 4th September, 2008, the application for stay made by the petitioner has been rejected by the State Government. A communication was issued to the petitioner on 25th March, 2011 by the Special Recovery Officer calling upon the petitioner to pay the amount within 30 days. 2. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that substantive Appeal against an order passed 2 wp6106­11 under Section 88 of the said Act is pending and if during the pendency of the Appeal, the property of the petitioner is sold, it will be impossible for the petitioner to get back the property even if he succeeds in the Appeal. 2. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The impugned order of rejection of the stay application was passed by the Government on 4th September, 2008. For challenging the said order, the present petition has been filed on 1st August, 2011. In this petition, the challenge is to the order of rejection of stay passed on 4th September, 2008 as well as to the order dated 24th April, 2008. The order dated 24th April, 2008 is already subjected to challenge by preferring an Appeal before the State Government which is pending. Therefore, the present writ petition cannot be entertained for challenging the order dated 24th April, 2008. For challenging the order dated 4th September, 2008, there is a gross delay of two years and ten months. In the petition, there is absolutely no explanation for such a long delay. The fact that no further steps were taken immediately after the dismissal of the stay application is no ground to entertain this petition. No case is made out for interference. Hence, the petition is accordingly rejected. (A.S.OKA, J.)