VIVEK BHILA PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, by the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.

(2.) By the above petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the Orders both dated 3-3-2007 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nashik division, Nashik by which order the applications for condonation of delay filed by each of the petitioner abovenamed for condoning the delay in filing the revision Applications came to be rejected. 2a. There is a Certificate issued against each of the petitioners under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' for short, for recovery of the loan amount advanced to each of them. The Certificate is dated 21-4-2003. The petitioners proposed to file a Revision Application invoking section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative societies Act, 1960 against the said Certificates. However, since the Revision applications were not filed within the period of limitation, the petitioners filed an application for condonation of delay. The said application for condonation of delay were rejected at the threshhold on the ground of non-compliance of the provisions of section 154 (2a) of the said Act. The said provisions mandate that a pre-deposit of 50 per cent of the amount under the Certificate is to be made for the Revision Application to be entertained.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners relies upon a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in 2006 (3) Mh. LJ. 256 in the matter of Dilawar Hakim Shah vs. Special Recovery Officer, Chiplun Urban Cooperative Bank ltd. and others, wherein the learned Single Judge has held that bar of sub-section (2a) of section 154 applies to the entertainment of revision unless the applicant deposits 50 per cent of the total amount of recoverable dues. However, bar is not applicable for consideration of application for condonation of delay. The learned Judge has further held that it cannot be said that revision is entertained unless the delay in filing it is condoned by making out sufficient cause.