Bombay High Court
AJIT SHRIKANT KALE AND ANRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE SECRETARY AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Divisional Joint Registrar erred in condoning the 475‑day delay as no specific prayer or sufficient justification was pleaded, and the order allowing condonation is set aside, resulting in dismissal of the revision.
Summary
The petitioners, former occupants of two rooms in a chawl, challenged the society's attempt to cancel one of their share certificates after redevelopment allocated them a single flat. The Deputy Registrar had earlier held that a member could not be removed solely by a General Body resolution and allowed the society to pursue appropriate steps. The society filed a revision after a 475‑day delay, seeking condonation of delay without a specific prayer or adequate justification. The Divisional Joint Registrar allowed the condonation, but the High Court found the delay unexplained and the application defective, noting that the power to condone delay must be exercised with clear cause. Consequently, the Court set aside the order allowing condonation, dismissed the revision, and directed the society to follow due process if it wishes to expel a member.
Issues considered
- Whether the Divisional Joint Registrar could validly condone a 475‑day delay in filing a revision application without a specific prayer and sufficient justification.
- Whether a co‑operative society can cancel a member's share certificate solely by a General Body resolution.
- Whether the revision application should be dismissed on account of inordinate, unexplained delay.
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- revision application
- co-operative society
- share certificate cancellation
- due process
- civil appellate jurisdiction
- high court
- delay justification
Judgment
Sonali Mane 17-WP-12521-2026.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12521 OF 2026
Ajit Shrikant Kale And Anr. … Petitioners
Versus
State Of Maharashtra Thr. The
Secretary And Ors. … Respondents
Mr. Rajendra Sorankar i/b Mr. Shashank Thatte, Mr. Yuvraj Takale, Ms.
Chaitali Jadhav for Petitioners.
[
Mr. Bhavin Gada a/w Mr. Sameer J. Chitnis, Mr. Omkar A. Dandekar i/b
M/s. Chitnis & Co. for Respondent No.3.
[
Mr. Y. D. Patil, AGP for Respondent/State.
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE : 22 SEPTEMBER 2026.
P.C. :
1) The Petition challenges Order dated 5 August 2026 passed by
the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai Division,
Mumbai allowing the application for condonation of delay filed by
Respondent No.3-Society in Revision Application No. 518 of 2025.
2) It appears that the Predecessors in interest of the Petitioners
were occupants of two rooms in the old chawl structure. Upon
redevelopment of the chawl, it is the case of the Society that in lieu of
Digitally
the two rooms bearing Nos. 6 and 7, only one large flat bearing E-5
signed by
MANE
MANE SONALI
SONALI DILIP
DILIP Date:
2026.09.24
15:21:35
+0530
___Page No.1 of 7___
22 September 2026
Sonali Mane 17-WP-12521-2026.docx
allotted to the occupants of the two rooms in the chawl. However, in
the two independent share certificates were issued by the society in the
year 1982. The society wants to undertake further process of
redevelopment and has decided to convene a meeting for cancellation
of one out of the two share certificates. The Petitioners got aggrieved by
proposed action of the society and approached the Deputy Registrar.
After conducting a hearing, the Deputy Registrar has ruled by Order
dated 29 July 2024 that the society cannot remove a member by
cancelling share certificate on the basis of mere decision of the General
Body Meeting. The Deputy Registrar had granted liberty to the society
to take appropriate steps in the matter.
3) It appears that the society did not immediately take any steps
to challenge Order dated 29 July 2024 passed by the Deputy Registrar.
After a delay of above 475 days, the society lodged a Revision before the
Divisional Joint Registrar and filed application for condonation of
delay. After conducting the hearing of the application for condonation
of delay, the Deputy Registrar closed not only the application for
condonation of delay but also the main Revision for decision vide Order
dated 30 June 2026. Petitioners were required to rush to this Court by
filing Writ Petition No. 9675 of 2026 expressing an apprehension that
the Divisional Joint Registrar was likely to decide the main Revision
Application without first deciding the issue of condonation of delay.
Accordingly, on 3 August 2026, this Court disposed of Writ Petition No.
9675 of 2026 and directed the Divisional Joint Registrar to pronounce
an order only on the application for condonation of delay. Accordingly,
by the impugned order dated 5 August 2026, the Divisional Joint
___Page No.2 of 7___
22 September 2026
Sonali Mane 17-WP-12521-2026.docx
Registrar, has allowed the application for condonation of delay and the
said order is subject matter of challenge in the present Petition.
4) I have heard Mr. Sorankar, the learned counsel appearing for
Petitioners, Mr. Gada, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent
No.3 and Mr. Patil, the learned AGP appearing for Respondent-State
and have considered the submissions canvassed by them.
5) Perusal of the application for condonation of delay filed by
Respondent No. 3-Society would indicate that only following
justification was pleaded for condoning the inordinate delay of 475
days.
3. We state that there is a delay of approx. 475 days to file this instant
Revision Appeal and Application for Interim Reliefs, from the date of
Impugned Order, excluding 30 days grace period of time to file the
Revision Appeal as contemplated in the Acts; and excluding the time of
receipt of the Impugned Order.
4. We state that the delay is due to time consuming process of taking
decisions and the monitory concerns as the Applicant had no adequate
funds to expend the cost of such litigation. Now the Applicant is
compelled to do it for the sake of interest and welfare of all the members
of the Applicant.
6) The application was also defective, as it did not contain any
specific prayer for condonation of delay. In paragraph 5 of the
application, it was pleaded thus:
5. We, through this Application, humbly and respectfully submit that
the delay be condoned as in the event, the delay is not condoned, the
Applicant may be subjected to irrevocable and irreparable loss and /or
damage as the entire case of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is based on
illegal, unwarranted and untenable demands in law, which are on the
false, frivolous and baseless grounds.
___Page No.3 of 7___
22 September 2026
Sonali Mane 17-WP-12521-2026.docx
7) Ignoring the absence of a formal prayer seeking condonation
of delay, it is seen that the Respondent No. 3-Society did not plead any
valid justification for condonation of delay 475 days. It pleaded vague
justifications of (i) time consuming process of taking decisions
(ii) monitory considerations.
8) The Divisional Joint Registrar has proceeded to allow the
application for condonation of delay by recording following findings:
The Applicant society in the present case mainly raises the grounds
that the delay is due to time consuming process of taking decision and
monitory concerns as the Applicant had no adequate funds to expend
the cost of such litigation. The impugned order was passed by the
Respondent No. 1 on or about 29/07/2024. There is delay of
approximately 475 days to file instant Revision Application.
On the other hand, the Respondents No. 2 & 3 mainly raise the
grounds that the filing of the above Revision Application is an absolute
abuse of process of law apart from being filed after a considerable
unexplained long delay of 475 days and that too without any application
seeking condonation of delay in filing the same.
On the aforesaid grounds, the Appellant society brought to notice
that there is a delay of 475 days in filing the present Revision
Application.
Hence, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance, the delay in
filing the present case does not appear to be deliberate or intentional on
the part of Applicant. So also the Applicant has given sufficient and
reasonable cause for filing the Revision Application be-lately.
9) Thus, the Divisional Joint Registrar has mechanically
accepted both the grounds of time consuming process for taking
decision and monitory considerations pleaded by the society without
bothering to examine as to how the decision making process for filing
of the revision got delayed. There was absolutely no material on record
___Page No.4 of 7___
22 September 2026
Sonali Mane 17-WP-12521-2026.docx
before the Divisional Joint Registrar, for arriving at a conclusion that
decision-making process got delayed for a particular reason. It is also
difficult to believe that the society was lacking funds for presentation
of revision before the Divisional Joint Registrar.
10) Mr. Gada, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3-
Society, orally seeks to submit that there was change in the Managing
Committee of the society, which delayed the decision-making process.
This ground is not pleaded in the application. However, even if the said
ground is taken into consideration, the decision to file revision appears
to have been taken by new Managing Committee and the earlier
Managing Committee was satisfied with the Order dated 29 July 2024
passed by the Deputy Registrar.
11) In my view, therefore, the delay was not adequately explained
in the present case and inordinately long delay of over one year and
three months was sought to be condoned by pleading only a general
explanation. In Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of
Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors.1 , the Apex Court has laid down
detailed guidelines about exercise of discretion by Courts while
considering the issue condonation of delay. Though, the power of
condonation of delay is discretionary, at the same time, the same
cannot be exercised casually in the absence of pleading a justifiable
ground especially when the delay is inordinate. In the present case,
there was absolutely no justification pleaded in the application for
seeking condonation of inordinate delay of 475 days. The Divisional
Joint Registrar has grossly erred in condoning the delay by passing the
1 (2013) 12 SCC 649
___Page No.5 of 7___
22 September 2026
Sonali Mane 17-WP-12521-2026.docx
impugned order. Merely because the Court is required to adopt a liberal
approach while considering the issue of condonation of delay, the same
does not mean that the requirement of demonstrating existence of
sufficient cause can be given a go-by altogether. In the present case, the
Divisional Joint Registrar has not even bothered to examine whether
their existed any justifiable or sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
12) Even otherwise, rejection of the Revision Application on
account of non condonation of delay does not cause any prejudice to
Respondent No.3-Society. If it is of the opinion that grant of
membership to one of the Petitioners is erroneous on account of
allotment of only one flat, necessary procedure needs to be adopted for
cancellation of membership of one of the members. Such a decision
cannot be adopted by passing of a mere resolution in the General Body
Meeting. If any member is erroneously admitted by the society, he is
required to be expelled from the society after following due process of
law. The Deputy Registrar has already granted liberty to Respondent
No.3-Society to exercise due process of law. The society is free to adopt
such remedy.
13) In view of the above discussion, the Impugned Order dated
5 August 2026 is indefensible and liable to be set aside. The Writ
Petition accordingly succeeds and I proceed to pass the following
Order: '
___Page No.6 of 7___
22 September 2026
Sonali Mane 17-WP-12521-2026.docx
ORDER
i) Order dated 5 August 2026 passed by the Divisional
Joint Registrar is set aside.
ii) Consequently, Revision Application No. 518 of 2025
is dismissed.
iii) Respondent No.3-Society shall however be at liberty
to adopt necessary remedy for expelling a member,
who is erroneously admitted. If such remedy is
adopted, the proceedings shall be decided on its own
merits, without being influenced by any of the
findings recorded in the order.
14) All contentions of the parties in that regard are kept open.
15) With the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed and
disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
___Page No.7 of 7___
22 September 2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.