1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5224/2009 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5233/2009 ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ (IN W.P. NO. 5224/2009) Mr. P.N. Kutti, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. L.V. Sangit, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5. (In W.P. No. 5233/2009) Mr. T.S. Lodhe, A.G.P. for respondents no.1 to 3. Mr. L.V. Sangit, Advocate for respondents no. 4 and 5. Mr. P.N. Kutti, Advocate for respondent no.6. CORAM : [R.K. DESHPANDE, J.] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2 Both these petitions challenge the order passed by Divisional Jt. Registrar, Co-operative Society, Nasik on 13/03/2009 rejecting the application for condonation of delay caused in filing revision under section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, on the ground that the petitioners in both the 2 petitions have not deposited 50% of the amount in terms of sub sec (2A) of Sec. 154. The notice in this matter was issued on 11/08/2009. Learned counsel appearing for the respective parties submit that the matter can be finally disposed of at the stage of admission. Hence, rule made returnable forthwith. 3 Leaned counsel waives service of notice for the respondents. The matter is heard finally by consent of parties. The question involved is whether the Divisional Jt. Registrar was right in rejecting application for condonation of delay on the ground that the petitioners have not deposited requisite amount in terms of Section 154(2A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. In view of several judgments delivered by this court including (i) 2006(3) Mh.L.J. 256 Bilawar Hakim Shah Vs. Special Recovery Officer and another, (ii) 2008 (2) Mh.L.J. 93 Vivek Bhila Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and another in which it has been held that it is only in the event the delay is condoned. The rigour of section 154 (2A) would come into play and the revision application can thereafter be entertained, only if 3 the applicant makes deposit of 50% of the mount in the Court. In view of this, the Divisional Jt. Registrar has committed an error, in dismissing application for condonation of delay, on the ground that the petitioners have failed to deposit the amount. 4 In the result, the petitions succeeds. The order dated 13/03/2009 passed by Divisional Jt. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nasik dismissing applications for condonation of delay along with revision is hereby quashed and set aside. The Jt. Registrar is directed to consider the application for condonation of delay, without insisting upon for deposit of 50% of the amount covered by the certificate issued under section 101 of the said Act. If the delay is condoned then the question of compliance of Sec. 154 (2A)) would arise. 5 Rule is made absolute. 6 No order as to costs. Dt : 23rd June, 10 [R.K. DESHPANDE, J.] tsk/