1 W.P.No5078/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.5078 OF 2011. The Managing Director, Purna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Basmathnagar, Tq. Basmath, Dist. Hingoli. ... Petitioner. Versus Sow.Kesharabai Pralhad Chintare, Age 40 years,Occ.Agri., R/o at village Rajapur, Tq.Basmath, Dist.Hingoli. ... Respondent. ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5079 OF 2011 The Managing Director, Purna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Basmathnagar, Tq. Basmath, Dist. Hingoli. ... Petitioner. Versus Pralhad S/o Majeji Chintare, Age 48 years, Occ.Agril., R/o at village Rajapur, Tq.Basmath, Dist.Hingoli. ... Respondent. 2 W.P.No5078/11 Mr.S.R.Bagal, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Mr.N.B.Jadhav, advocate for the Respondents. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 25.08.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The present Respondents had filed a dispute against the present petitioner. The Cooperative Court, Nanded, partly allowed the said dispute. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate Court. The office of the Cooperative Appellate Court took an objection that there is a delay. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay. The Cooperative Appellate Court allowed the application for condonation of delay subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-. The said order is 3 W.P.No5078/11 assailed in the present Writ Petitions. 4. Mr.Bagal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact, there is no delay in filing the appeal. When there is no delay in filing the appeal, the Cooperative Appellate Court did not have any jurisdiction to impose cost. The learned counsel contends that the appellate Court has wrongly arrived at the conclusion that the delay is caused in filing the appeal. 5. Mr.Jadhav, learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the office has calculated the delay. Pursuant thereto, the application for condonation of delay was filed. When the delay is caused and if the said is condoned, it is discretion of the Court to award cost. The petitioner can not take advantage of his own negligence in filing the appeal late. 6. With the assistance of the learned counsels, I have gone through the order. In W.P.No.5078/2011, the Cooperative Appellate Court 4 W.P.No5078/11 had delivered the judgment and award on 20.11.2010, whereas in W.P.No.5079/2011, the Cooperative Appellate Court had delivered the judgment and award on 12.11.2010. In both the matters the petitioner applied for the certified copy on 13.12.2010 and the same was received on 27.12.2010. The appeals were filed on 21.1.2011. The period of limitation for filing an appeal is 60 days. The days spent in obtaining the certified copies have to be deducted. Taking into account the above dates, it does not appear that there is any delay in filing the appeal. In such circumstances, the cost could not have been imposed upon the petitioner. The order imposing cost upon the petitioner as such is without jurisdiction. 7. In the result, the Writ Petitions are allowed. The impugned order to the extent of imposing cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) upon the petitioner is quashed and set 5 W.P.No5078/11 aside. Rule is accordingly made absolute to that extent. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp5078.11