Partly allowed

Shri. Ashok Dharanappa Arwade v. the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-Op. Societies, Kolhapur Division and Ors.

Bombay HC28 Aug 2015WP/8790/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order rejecting delay condonation applications for lack of reasons. Single Judge held order unsustainable without reasoning, set it aside, and restored applications to Registrar with direction to act forthwith.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside, applications restored to Registrar with direction to decide on merits with reasons within one month.

Shri. Ashok Dharanappa Arwade Vs the Divisional… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

WPST12778&12804_14.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.12778 OF 2014 WITH WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.12804 OF 2014

¶4

Ashok Dharanappa Arwade … Petitioner Vs. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Kolhapur and others … Respondents

¶5

Mr. Anand S. Patil for Petitioner. Ms A. D. Vhatkar, AGP for Respondents No.1 and 5. Mr. Bhupesh V. Samant for Respondents No.2 and 3. Ms Shami Karande for Respondent No.4.

¶6

CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J. DATE : 28^TH AUGUST, 2015

¶7

P.C. :

¶8

Heard Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for petitioner, Ms Vhatkar, learned Counsel for respondents No.1 and 5, Mr. Samant, learned Counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 and Ms Karande, learned Counsel for respondent No.4. Rule. The learned Counsel for the respective respondents waive service. At the request and by consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the Petitions are taken up for final hearing.

¶9

By these Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.03.2014 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Kolhapur Division, Kolhapur - respondent No.1. By that order, respondent No.1 rejected the applications filed by the petitioner for condoning the delay in filing the Revision Applications. Respondent No.1 has passed order on 12.03.2014, which reads thus,

¶10

“Delay application is hereby rejected for want of sufficient reason.”

¶11

1/2

¶12

WPST12778&12804_14.sxw

¶13

In my opinion, respondent No.1 was not justified in deciding the applications in such manner. Respondent No.1 ought to have given reasons before rejecting the applications. Since no reasons are assigned, the impugned order is liable to be set aside only on this count. Learned Counsel appearing for the parties state that they will appear before the respondent No.1 on 28.09.2015 and for that purpose, fresh notice need not be issued to them. Hence, Petitions are disposed of in the following terms:

¶14

a. Impugned order dated 12.03.2014 passed by the respondent No.1 in both the Petitions is set aside;

¶15

b. Applications for condonation of delay are restored to the file of the respondent No.1;

¶16

c. Parties shall appear before the respondent No.1 on 28.09.2015 and respondent No.1 shall decide the applications for condonation of delay within 1 month from the date of appearance of the parties;

¶17

d. Respondent No.1 shall decide the applications on its own merits and in accordance with law and will also give reasons while passing the order;

¶18

e. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

¶19

Order accordingly.

¶20

(R. G. KETKAR, J.)

¶21

Minal Parab

¶22

2/2

Shri. Ashok Dharanappa Arwade v. the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-Op. Societies, Kolhapur Division and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Ashok Dharanappa Arwade v. the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-Op. Societies, Kolhapur Division and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Premchand Shantilal Lodha Vs Swati Premchand Lodha and Ors.

M/S. Shelter Developers Vs M/S. Estate Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Rajesh Prem Lala Vs Gauri Grover

Abdul Rashid Jainuddin Momin and Ors. Vs the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division and Anr.

Shri. Sadashiv Sakharam Patil Vs Sou. Vandana Sadashiv Patil

M/S. Chunilal Velji Patel and Company Vs Koteshwar Apartment Chs Ltd. and Anr.