( 1 ) wp9814-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9814 OF 2010 Bhimanna Shankar Baingire, R/o Nadiwadi, Tq. and District Latur. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Latur. 2. The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Deputation), Maharashtra State Cooperative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd., Arth Complex, First Floor, Adalat Road, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad. RESPONDENTS .... Mr. R.N. Irpatgire, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Tambe, AGP for the respondents. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 6th January, 2011] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges order ( 2 ) wp9814-10 dated 29th March, 2010 rendered by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Latur, in the proceedings No. 65/2007. By the impugned order, the delay condonation application filed by the petitioner came to be rejected. 3. The petitioner had challenged issuance of certificate under section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, "the MCS Act"), by filing revision application under section 154 of the said Act. The main contention of the petitioner before the revisional authority was that he was not duly served with the notice of the proceedings before the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies and, therefore, he could not make out his defence in the proceedings under section 101 of the MCS Act. The petitioner further submitted that the recovery certificate issued by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies was erroneous and illegal. He contended that he had repaid the entire loan amount upto 2004. He further contended that he filed the revision application after the knowledge of the issuance of the recovery certificate and, therefore, it was within time. He, however, submitted that if there was any delay found, then the same may be condoned. ( 3 ) wp9814-10 4. Having heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned A.G.P., and on perusal of the relevant record, it prima facie appears that the petitioner was served with a notice (Exh-B to the petition), which does not show any date on which he was called upon to appear before the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies. The notice served on the petitioner does not sufficiently inform him where he was to appear for defending himself in the proceedings. In other words, the certificate issued under section 101 (2) of the MCS Act does not furnish necessary information regarding due service of the earlier notice of hearing or the basis on which the learned Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies came to the conclusion that the liability could be imposed on the petitioner. It prima facie appears that the delay caused in filing of the revision application was unintentional. The revision application was filed before the learned Divisional Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies on 3rd November, 2007. Assuming that there was some delay, yet, the reasons shown in the revision application ought to have been considered. It was the contention of the petitioner that the Society had issued No Dues Certificate dated 20th October, 2007 in his favour. The impugned order does not show as to whether the No Dues Certificate was appropriately verified by ( 4 ) wp9814-10 the learned Divisional Joint Registrar. The rejection of the revision application on ground of delay is, therefore, improper. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was duly served with the copy of the recovery certificate immediately after issuance thereof. 5. Considering the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The revision application filed by the petitioner is restored, with direction to condone the delay and thereafter, to register the revision application if due compliance of the procedure like deposit of 50 per cent of the amount is followed by the petitioner and thereafter, to decide the revision application on merits. If the petitioner will not deposit 50 per cent of the amount, it goes without saying that the revision application may be dismissed by the competent authority on such technical ground for non-compliance of the mandatory provision. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp9814-10 ( 5 ) wp9814-10