Bombay High Court: While deciding writ petitions under Section 154B–29 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (the “Act”), a Single Judge Bench of Amit Borkar, J., held that the revisional authority’s view that no application for condonation of delay can be entertained once the matter is closed for orders was unsustainable. The Court observed that the Act imposes no embargo on filing an application for condonation of delay before the final order is pronounced and emphasised that the lis remains pending until decision. The Court therefore set aside the order and restored the revision applications to the revisional authority.
Background:
The proceedings arose under Section 154B–29 of the Act. The Registrar had rejected applications filed under this provision, leading the petitioner to approach the revisional authority. The revision applications, however, were filed after expiry of the prescribed period of limitation, requiring condonation of delay.
The record shows that the petitioner moved an application for condonation of delay when the revisional authority had already reserved the proceedings for judgment. The authority took the view that once the matter is closed for orders, no application for condonation can be entertained. The petitioner argued that the delay of 138 days was not excessive and that the authority ought to have considered whether sufficient cause existed.
However, the State opposed the plea, contending that the stage of fixing the matter for judgment curtailed the right to seek condonation.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court emphasised that the scheme of the Act does not create any embargo on filing an application for condonation of delay at any stage before the final order is pronounced. The Court highlighted that the lis remains pending till the authority pronounces its decision, and therefore the stage of fixing the matter for judgment does not curtail the right of a party to seek consideration of a statutory plea such as condonation of delay.
The Court noted that the delay of 138 days was not excessive and observed that in disputes concerning recovery of dues by a housing society, the authority must adopt a liberal and rational approach. The Court further observed that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that procedural prescriptions must advance justice and not defeat it. It was held that the revisional authority ought to have examined whether sufficient cause existed, instead of declining to consider the application merely on a technical ground.
The Court therefore set aside the order dated 19-10-2021 and directed that the revision applications stand restored to the file of the revisional authority, which shall issue notice, grant due opportunity of hearing, and decide the application for condonation of delay.
[RNA Mirage Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. District Registrar, Writ Petition No. 8675 of 2023, decided on 02-12-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Nausher Kohli, with Jehan Fouzdar and Akash Agarwal i/by MAAK Legal
For the State: M.S. Srivastav, AGP, Savina Crasto, AGP, Sulbha Chipade, AGP