IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (2271 N0. M%^3 OF 20^9 PETITIONER CAPI'fcUa'vJ^") ^^?A^ .o'.t-^ ^y^^y .-^ ..-•••''' ^^" . .'''' <^..-^:- Shikshit Swarojgar Udyog Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Bilaspur C.G., through the President Jyoti Bhtehan Gaur S/o Late Shri S.C. Gaur, aged about 44 years, Tilak Nagar Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. s^y" c.: VERSUS RESPONDENT 1. State Bank of Indore, Branch Mochh, through the Branch Manager, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur C.G. i"~ 2. The Registrar Cooperative Societies Chhattisgarh, Raipur C.G. 3. The Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies, Bilaspur C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA . MAY THIS PLEASE TO YOUR LORDSHIP, n'1-^ T-.^ j-^Li-lja^v ___ ^^C j-1—„ --1 -1- ^ 's^s-"^ ^ %te2%^ J; HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SingleBench:J4on'ble Shri Manindra IVIohan Shrivastava, J. Petitioner (Appellant) Respondents W. P.(227)N0.4823 of 2009 Shikshit Swarojgar Udyog Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Bilaspur Versus State Bank of Indore and Others (Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) Present: - Shri Rakesh Pandey,counsel for the petitioner. Shri R. R. Sinha, counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Suryakant Mishra, Panel Lawyerforthe State/respondents No.2 & 3. ORALORDER (Passedon 14-03-2011) This petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by order dated 31- 03-2009 (Annexure P-1) passed in appeal preferred by the appellant before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissedonly on the grpund of limitation, rejecting prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. The petitioner had supplied a hauler machine and accessories to one Laxmi Prasad Shriwas and case for loan was sanctioned by respondent No.1. Case of the petitioner is that after having supplied the hauler machine, when the petitioner claimed that the amount of loan be disbursed to him, the bank did not pay the said loan amount on the allegation that hauler machine supplied to the beneficiaries was used one. The dispute arose, which was taken before the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies under 64 of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Society Adhiniyam, 1960 (In short "the Adhiniyam of 1960"). On 16-09-2008, the Joint Registrar dismissed the case of the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter filed appeal on 26-02-2009 before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Ri z— 2- 3. The appellate authority, however. dismissed the appeal holding that the petitioner has not specifically stated in the application as to when arid from whom, he received the copy ofthe order sought to be appealed against and that he has failed to explain each day's delay. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appellate authority has adopted unduly restricted approach while considering the application for condonation of delay ignoring well settled legal position that an application for condonation of delay has to be liberally considered. He further submits that in the application seeking condonation of delay, it was stated that after the order was passed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bilaspur on 16-09-2008, an application was filed on 26-11-2008 before the same authority raising certain disputes and the petitioner waited for the decision on that application, but when no decision was taken on that application, finally, an appeal was preferred before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. He submits that this aspect was not taken into consideration by the appellate authority and on other ground that the appellant has failed to disclose the date on which copy of order was received and by whom and that there is no explanation for each day's delay in preferring appeal before the Registrar, the application was rejected and the appeal was dismissed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the order was passed on 16-09-2008 and copy of the order was received by the petitioner on 23-09-2008. He submits that under the provisions contained in Section 77 of the Adhiniyam of 1960, the period prescribed for preferring an appeal is 30 days. He submits that the petitioner slept over his rights and did not prefer any appeal within the stipulated period and even if it is accepted that some application was moved before the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, that -3 v would not give the petitioner any ground to seek condonation of delay. He further submits that the appeal has been filed after almost five months; thus, there was delay of approximately four months in filing the appeal. He further submits that the cause shown by the petitioner cannot be said to be sufficient, therefore, the appellate authority has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner. 6. Learned State counsel has also made similar submission. 7. As order was passed by the Joint Registrar on 16-09-2008 and the record shows that the petitioner received the copy of order on 23-09-2008. However, instead of preferring an appeal, the petitioner sought to move an application on 26-11-2008 before the same authority and waited for the decision on that application for about three months, and thereafter, filed an appeal on 26-02- 2009. The petitioner has stated those facts in his application for condonation of delay and has also stated that the delay was bonafide and not deliberate and it was supported by an affidavit. 8. The appellate authority has rejected the prayer for condonation of delay by stating that the petitioner has failed to disclose the date, on which, the copy of order was received and the person, who served the same as also that there is also no explanation for each day's delay. In the opinion of this Court, the appellate authority has adopted very narrow and strict approach while considering the application for condonation of delay. The petitioner has stated in the application that after the order passed by the Joint Registrar on 16-09-2008, he moved an application before the same authority and waited for the decision on the said application, but when it was not decided, the appeal is being filed. The delay in filing the appeal is also not enormous. There was delay of approxitnately four months in filing the appeal. In view ofthe provisions contained in sub section (A) of Section 80 of the Adhiniyam of 1976, delay could be condoned if the appellant satisfies the authority that there was sufficient cause A .lv for not preferring the appeal within the stipulated period. The appellate authority while considering the sufficiency of the ground, ought to have taken a libera] view and not such a strict view as has been taken in the present case requiring the petitioner to explain each day's delay. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Improvement Trust, Ludhiana versus Ujagar Singh and Others, (2010) 6 Supreme Court Cases 786, wherein it has been held that conduct, behaviour and attitude of the petitioner is a relevant factor and in that case, the Supreme Court observed that from conduct, behaviour and attitude of the appellant, it could not be said that it had been absolutely callous and negligent in prosecuting the matter. The Supreme Court further observed that justice can be done only when the matter is fought on merits and in accordance with law rather than to dispose of it on such technicalities and that too at the threshold. The Supreme Court further observed that unless mala fides are writ large on the conduct of the party, generally as a normal rule, delay should be condoned. In the legal arena, an attempt should always be made to allow the matter to be contested on merits rather than to throw it out on such technicalities. The Supreme Court in that case considered that the delay was not huge which could not have been condoned, without putting the respondents to harm or prejudice. If the principles which have been laid down by the Supreme Court are applied in the present case, the delay appears to be bonafide and not malafide. The delay is also not very huge and the cause shown, on a liberal interpretation, required to be accepted. Therefore, the impugned order dated 31- 03-2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the appellate authority cannot be sustained in the eye of-law and is hereby set aside and the delay in filing the appeal before the appellate authority is condoned. The matter is remanded to the appellate -^ 3.J Tumane authority to decide the appeal on merits without going into the question of limitation. 10. The petition is accordingly allowed. No orders as to cost. Sdl- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava;