1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.2649 OF 2009 Jagdamba Matsya Vyavsai Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., Hiwarkheda, Tq. Kannad, Dist. Aurangabad Through its Secretary, Harichand s/o Sarichand Chavan, age 40 yrs, Occ. Fisherman, R/o Hiwarkheda, at present R/o House No.197, Sidharth Colony, Hiwarkheda Road, Kannad, Dist. Aurangabad. PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Fisheries) and Commissioner of Fisheries, State of Maharashtra Taraporwala Acquirum, Charni Road, Subhashchandra Bose Road, See Face, Mumbai – 400 002. 2. Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, (Dairy), Aurangabad. 3. Hukumchand s/o Trimbak Rathod, age major, Occ. Fisherman, R/o Garada, Post Bramni, Tq. Kannad, Dist. Aurangabad. 4. Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Fisheries) Maharashtra State Office at Taraporwala Acqurium, Charni Road, Subhashchandra Bose Road, See Face, Mumbai 400 002. RESPONDENTS. Mr. N.R. Solunke, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.B.Ghatge AGP for R-1,2 and 4. Mr. S.W. Mundhe advocate for R-3. CORAM : S. B. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 5th MARCH, 2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. Heard learned counsel for respective parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. This petition takes an exception to the judgment and order passed by the Commissioner (Fisheries) dated 27.02.2009, annexure 'F' is copy of the said order. This order is passed in revision application No.1/2009. Order impugned records that there is no application for condonation of delay and revision is beyond the period of limitation. On this sole ground revision application is dismissed. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has placed on record copy of memo of revision application No.1/2009 (annexure E), page 37. From this copy he points out paragraph No.8. Statement is made that decision recorded by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Fisheries) Mumbai is exparte, it was not communicated to the present petitioner, petitioner was not aware of the said decision. Copy of the exparte order passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Aurangabad is on record page 32. This copy is dated 10.10.2008. According to the contention of the petitioner, this is exparte decision which was not communicated to the petitioner. On the date of knowledge, revision application filed, is within period, however, if some delay is occurred, it may be condoned. 5. I have also heard learned A.G.P and Advocate Mr. Mundhe for respondent No.3. 6. Copy of the reply-affidavit on behalf of the State i.e. respondents 3 No.1,2 and 4 sworn in by one Mr. Vijay s/o Vishnupant Dhote, Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Dairy) is pointed out by learned A.G.P. In paragraph No.6 of this reply affidavit, it is contended that Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Dairy) Aurangabad received an application on 30.06.2008 by Secretary, Jagadamba Matsyavyavsai Sahakari Sanstha, Hiwarkheda to depute a liquidator on above society as on 30.06.2008. I am referring this affidavit only to find out as to whether decision given by learned Assistant Charity Commissioner Cooperative Societies dated 10.10.2008 was communicated to the petitioner. There is no such statement. 7. I am inclined to allow this petition partly by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner (Fisheries), Maharashtra State Mumbai (annexure 'F') (page 51) i.e order passed in Revision Application No.1/2009 dated 27.02.2009. Revision application is restored on the file of competent authority under the provisions of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 with further liberty in favour of the present applicant to file additional affidavit to substantiate his contention that decision sought to be revised allegedly given by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, was not communicated to the present petitioner and from the date of knowledge revision application was filed, within a period of limitation petitioner is eligible for condonation of delay. Such affidavit, if filed, on behalf of the petitioner before the Reivisonal authority, said authority shall accept the said affidavit, give opportunity to respondent No.3, in this writ petition to file affidavit-in-reply and thereafter revisional authority shall decide plea of condonation of delay occurred in filing Revision application No.01/2009. Rule is made absolute in above terms. Parties shall appear before the revisional authority on 05.04.2010. Within three 4 weeks from 05.04.2010 revisional authority shall decide the claim of the present petition seeking condonation of delay i.e. on or before 26.04.2010. 8. Authentic copy is permitted to the requesting parties as per usual procedure. ( S. B. DESHMUKH ) JUDGE. ..... aaa/2649.09