SATYA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of three writ petitions bearing CWP Nos. 1697, 1698 and 1699 of 2015, as the issue involved in these petitions is common but the facts are being extracted from CWP No.1697 of 2015, Satya Devi v. State of Haryana and others .

(2.) In brief, the petitioner was a member of respondent No.3, society. She was expelled from the membership of the society by way of a resolution dated 10.11.2004. The petitioner, challenged the said order before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon in the year 2006 by filing a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On 19.10.2006, during the pendency of the complaint, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 114 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984(in short 'the Act of 1984') before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Gurgaon. The said appeal was dismissed on 17.09.2010 on the ground of non-maintainability as the petitioner had the remedy under Sections 102 and 103 of the Act of 1984. The petitioner challenged that order dated 17.09.2010 by way of a revision before the Financial Commissioner which was filed on 09.01.2012. The said revision petition was dismissed on 01.10.2014 on the ground that the appeal was filed in the year 2008 against the order of expulsion passed in the year 2004, therefore, it was highly belated and there is no provision under Section 114 of the Act of 1984 to entertain any appeal beyond the period of 60 days as there is no provision for condoning the delay.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner/s has submitted that the petitioner had filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 before the DRCS for seeking condonation of delay but that application was not decided. Rather her appeal was dismissed on the ground that she had the remedy of arbitration instead of appeal. However, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner/s has submitted that even if she is not entitled to invoke section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for seeking condonation of delay, stating sufficient cause for approaching the Court late, yet she could invoke Section 14 of the Act of 1963 to exclude the period spent before the Consumer Forum.