1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2456 OF 2009 with CA NOS.10660/2009 & 6547/2010. 1) Laxmi w/o Bhausaheb Mhasalekar Age: 43 Yrs., occu. Household, r/o B-1/41, Thakare Nagar, N-2, CIDCO, Aurangabad. 2) Bhausaheb s/o Deorao Mhasalekar Age: 48 Yrs., occu. Business & Agril., r/o B-1/41, Thakare Nagar, N-2, CIDCO,Aurangabad. - PETITIONERS VERSUS 1) Adarsh Mahila Urban Co.op. Bank Ltd., Aurangabad, Through its Branch Manager. 2) The Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Aurangabad. 3) The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad. Anjuman Bungalow, Adalat Road, 2 Aurangabad. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.Milind Patil,Advocate for Petitioners; Mr.MR Chhallani, Advocate for Respondent No.1; Mr.KM Suryawanshi, AGP for Resp.Nos. 2 & 3. ----- CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 14th July, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1) This writ petition challenges the order dated 16th August, 2008 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, allowing the revision application No.22/2007 filed by the respondent no.1-Bank and remanding the matter back to the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Aurangabad. 2) Notice in this matter was issued on 28th April, 2009 and interim relief was also granted. In response to the notice, Shri Challani, learned 3 Counsel appears for Respondent No.1, whereas learned AGP appears for Respondent nos. 2 and 3. Learned Counsel for the parties agree that the matter can be finally disposed of at the stage of admission. Hence, Rule made returnable forthwith. The matter is heard finally by consent of the parties. 3) The question is whether the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Aurangabad was right in allowing the Revision Application No.22/2007 filed by the Respondent No.1-Bank, without even considering the aspect of delay caused in filing the revision application. The undisputed factual position is that, the application moved by the respondent no.1-Bank for grant of a certificate under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter to be referred as the said Act) was rejected by an order dated 3.10.2006. Being aggrieved by the said order of rejection of the application, the respondent No.1-Bank filed a 4 revision being Revision Application No.22/2007, invoking the jurisdiction of the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Aurangabad, under Section 154 of the said Act on 23rd July, 2007. The period of limitation for preferring a revision application, as prescribed under Section 154 of the said Act, is of thirty days. Thus, it is apparent that the revision filed by the Respondent No.1-Bank was beyond the period of limitation. 4) It is also undisputed factual position that, the petitioners were not given a notice of any application for condonation of delay, if at all it was filed by the respondent no.1-Bank. It is also not in dispute that the orders have not been passed on the application for condonation of delay. In view of this undisputed position available on record, the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Aurangabad, has committed an error of jurisdiction in allowing the revision application filed by the Respondent 5 No.1-Bank. The revision was barred by limitation and hence, without condoning the delay, caused in filing the revision application, the Divisional Joint Registrar, could not have proceeded with the decision of revision on merits. The order impugned, therefore, cannot be sustained and the same, therefore, needs to be set aside. 5) In the result, the instant writ petition is allowed. The order dated 16th August, 2008 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Aurangabad, allowing the revision application No.22/2007 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Aurangabad, for deciding the revision afresh. It is made clear that, if an application for condonation of delay is filed, the concerned authority shall first decide the application for condonation of delay after issuing notice to the petitioners and giving them an opportunity of being heard in the matter. 6 6) This Court, by an order dated 16th December, 2009, passed a conditional interim relief, which was subject to deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- by the petitioners in this Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the said amount had been deposited in this Court and it was also withdrawn by the Respondent No.1-Bank as per the order dated 25.1.2010 passed by this Court. It is further made clear that the the claim for the said amount shall be subject to outcome of the proceedings under Section 154 of the said Act. The parties to appear before the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Aurangabad on 2nd August, 2010. Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of in view of the decision in the writ petition. (R.K.DESHPANDE) JUDGE bdv/wp2456.09