1 91 wp.3616.10 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3616 OF 2010 Sou. Sulochana Hirasa Zad. ... Petitioner Versus The Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies and others. ... Respondents ----- Mr. A.B.Borkar for the Petitioner. Mr. S.D.Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. P.M.Arjunwadkar for Respondent Nos.4 and 5. Mr. T.S.Ingale for Respondent No.8. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 02 nd August, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 as well as the Respondent Nos.8 who are the only contesting Respondents as well as the learned AGP appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2 91 wp.3616.10 2 A revision application was preferred by the Petitioner under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) for challenging the sale certificate dated 6 th January, 2007. The revision application was preferred on 16 th December, 2009 and therefore, an application for condonation of delay was made. By the impugned order, the said application for condonation of delay has been rejected. 3 The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that the Petitioner has an excellent case on merits and in fact, the sale is null and void and non-est. His submission is that the fact that the Petitioner was prosecuting various proceedings has not been considered. 4 The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 invited the attention of the Court to the orders passed in the Writ Petition No.6433 of 2006 and the Writ Petition No.7801 of 2008 3 91 wp.3616.10 preferred by the Petitioner. His submission is that the issue regarding illegality of the sale certificate has been already concluded by the orders passed in the said petitions. 5 I have carefully considered the submissions. The challenge in the revision application preferred by the Petitioner is to the sale certificate dated 6 th January, 2007. Perusal of the memorandum of the Writ Petition No.7801 of 2008 filed by the Petitioner shows that in prayer clause (a) thereof, the sale certificate dated 6 th January, 2007 was specifically challenged. The order dated 5 th March, 2009 passed in the Writ Petition No.7801 of 2008 shows that a specific contention was raised that the sale was nullity. The said contention has been dealt with by this Court while rejecting the writ petition. There is a finding recorded by this Court that there was no illegality or irregularity in holding the auction. The order passed by this Court in the writ petition has been confirmed in the Letters Patent Appeal by the Division Bench by holding that the 4 91 wp.3616.10 Petitioner had approached the Court with unclean hands. The order of the Division Bench has been affirmed by the Apex Court. It is pertinent to note that when the application for condonation of delay was filed by the Petitioner on 16 th December, 2009, the order passed in the Writ Petition No.7801 of 2008 was already confirmed by the Apex Court on 14 th December, 2009. Thus, filing of the revision application by the Petitioner is nothing but the abuse the process of law. 6 Hence, no case for interference is made out in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is rejected. [ A.S.OKA, J ]