Bombay High Court
ASMITA ANKUSH TARATEversusDIVISIONAL JOINT REGISTRAR CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES NASHIK AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The revision order was quashed because the Registrar should have first decided the condonation of delay before addressing the merits of the revision.
Summary
The petitioner challenged a September 16, 2015 order of the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nashik, which dismissed a revision application along with a condonation of delay request. The petitioner argued that the Registrar decided the merits of the revision without first ruling on the condonation application, thereby denying a proper hearing. The respondents contended that the delay justified dismissal and that the petitioner had been heard. The Court observed that the Registrar had recorded hearing on the condonation application but proceeded to decide the revision merits without first granting condonation, violating procedural fairness. Consequently, the Court partially allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, restored the condonation application, and directed the Registrar to decide the condonation first and then the revision with a proper hearing.
Issues considered
- Whether the Divisional Joint Registrar could adjudicate the merits of a revision application without first deciding the application for condonation of delay.
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- revision application
- procedural fairness
- co-operative societies
- writ petition
- Divisional Joint Registrar
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:11979
Dilwale 1 102-WP-14454 -17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
102 WRIT PETITION NO. 14454 OF 2017
Asmita Ankush Tarate
VERSUS
Divisional Joint Registrar Co Operative Societies Nashik And Others
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. L. H. Kawale h/f Mr. Suryawanshi
Kamlakar J.
AGP for Respondents: Mr. R. B. Dhaware
Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 & 4 : Mr. Narwade Narayan B.
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 18.03.2026
PER COURT :
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16th September
2015 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies,
Nashik Division, Nashik in Revision Application No. 51.2014, whereby
the revision filed by the petitioner along with application for condonation
of delay came to be dismissed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application
for condonation of delay was filed before the Divisional Joint Registrar
and the same was argued. It is submitted that without deciding the
application for condonation of delay, the authority proceeded to consider
the merits of the revision and ultimately rejected the application for
condonation of delay. According to him, the Divisional Joint Registrar has
committed an error in deciding the matter in such a manner.
Dilwale 2 102-WP-14454 -17.odt
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4
supports the impugned order. It is submitted that there was delay in filing
the revision and while considering the aspect of delay, the Divisional
Joint Registrar has also adverted to the merits of the matter. It is further
submitted that the petitioners were heard and, therefore, no fault can be
found with the impugned order.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal
of the impugned order, it appears that the Divisional Joint Registrar has
specifically recorded that arguments were heard on the application for
condonation of delay. Once the matter was heard only on the aspect of
delay, the authority ought not to have proceeded to decide the revision on
merits without first condoning the delay. The revision application has
thus been dismissed without granting an effective opportunity of hearing
on merits. In view of the findings recorded in the impugned order itself,
interference is warranted. Hence, I proceed to pass following order:
ORDER
(I) The petition is partly allowed.
(ii) The order dated 16th September 2015 passed by the
Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nashik
Division, Nashik in Revision Application No. 51.2014 is
quashed and set aside.
(iii) The application for condonation of delay filed by the
petitioner is restored to the file.
Dilwale 3 102-WP-14454 -17.odt
(iv) The Divisional Joint Registrar shall first decide the
application for condonation of delay and, if the delay is
condoned, shall thereafter decide the revision on its own
merits, after granting an opportunity of hearing to all
concerned parties.
(v) All contentions of the parties are kept open.
(vi) The interim order, if any, shall continue till the decision of
the revision application.
(vii) The revisional authority shall decide the proceedings as
expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of
four months from today.
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE
Checking your session…